ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Enabling reproducible type 1 diabetes polygenic risk scoring for clinical and translational applications.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Type 5 diabetes mellitus: nutritional-imprinted β-cell insufficiency, diagnostic gaps, and emerging therapeutic strategies.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Type 1 diabetes polygenic risk scores (PRS) offer a promising tool for identifying diabetes subtypes in adults with new-onset disease. We aimed to develop a pipeline for the clinical translation of type 1 diabetes PRS to support clinical decision-making within a large health system and to provide publicly available code for applying these methods to future PRS models. Research Design and Methods: We adapted two established type 1 diabetes PRS models: a 67-SNP (GRS2) and a 7-SNP (AA7) score for a clinical genotyping platform and applied them to 73,346 participants in the biobank at the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine (CCPM). We evaluated the scores' performance differentiating between type 1 and type 2 diabetes in adults using a clinician-curated diabetes phenotyping algorithm and examined associations with diabetes-related clinical data extracted from patients' health records. The impact of technical genotyping missingness on score accuracy and ancestry calibration were assessed independently. Results: Both scores effectively distinguished type 1 from type 2 diabetes across genetically defined ancestry groups (all AUC > 0.80) and demonstrated consistent performance in the UK Biobank (all AUC > 0.75). Individuals in the top quintile of each PRS were enriched for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) cases, accounting for nearly half of all DKA cases in the cohort. Additionally, the top quintile showed nearly threefold increased odds of GAD autoantibody positivity (OR = 2.94 [95% CI 2.08-4.17]). Conclusions: Our evaluations demonstrated the potential utility of PRS for diabetes subtyping in a clinical setting. We present a framework of critical steps toward a standardized system for future translation of diabetes PRS to equitable clinical use, along with software to make it possible for others.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.