ArticleProblemy endokrinologii2026
[Prognostic significance of dynamic evaluation of C-peptide level in prediction type 1 diabetes mellitus in children].
Article in Problemy endokrinologii, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07627230 (Prospective Cohort Study of Genetic, Immunologic, and Environmental Risk Factors for Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Their Healthy Siblings), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Prospective Cohort Study of Genetic, Immunologic, and Environmental Risk Factors for Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Their Healthy Siblings
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundType 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a chronic progressive autoimmune disease characterized by destruction of pancreatic betta cells leading to insulin deficiency, measured by C-peptide testing. C-peptide secretion has been studied in diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic aspects in patients with already manifested T1DM. Insulin secretion assessed by the level of C-peptide at the preclinical stage remains under-studied.
aimThe aim of the study was to assess the possibility of predicting the development of T1DM in healthy siblings based on dynamic measurements of C-peptide concentration. MATERIALS AND
methodsA multicenter prospective longitudinal study involving 532 individuals was conducted. Median follow-up duration was 5.6 years. Group 1 (n=325) included children aged 0-18 years with newly diagnosed T1DM; group 2 (n=201) consisted of healthy brothers and sisters (siblings) who did not develop T1DM until the end of the study; group 3 (n=6) comprised healthy siblings who developed T1DM before the study completion. All participants underwent dynamic testing of blood analysis for C-peptide using solid-phase chemiluminescent immunoassay.
resultsIn groups 1 and 3, the actual median concentration of baseline C-peptide was below reference values: 0.31 ng/mL [95% CI 0.10-1.39] and 0.56 ng/mL [95% CI 0.32-0.85], respectively. In group 2, it corresponded to the lower limit of reference values: 0.88 ng/mL [95% CI 0.28-2.69]. The observed differences were statistically significant between groups 1 and 2 (χ2 =168.29, df=1, p < 0.001) and between groups 2 and 3 (χ2 =4.2292, df=1, p=0.040). Regression modeling revealed a nonlinear positive relationship between C-peptide concentration and age. At any age category, the median initial C-peptide concentration in groups 1 and 3 was lower than that in group 2 above the average level ("intercept") characteristic for the cohort of specific age. The association between C-peptide concentration and time since observation onset was statistically significant (p < 0.05) and bidirectional: over time, concentrations decreased in groups 1 and 3 and increased in group 2.
conclusionMeasurement of baseline C-peptide levels followed by dynamic monitoring may serve as an additional screening tool for predicting the risk of T1DM development in healthy siblings.
Indexed as
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.