ArticleEndocrine2026
Autoimmune polyendocrine syndrome in type 1 diabetes: why formal diagnosis matters for clinical utility.
Article in Endocrine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In response to Huang et al., we clarify the take-home message of our study on autoimmune polyendocrine syndrome (APS) in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Existing guidelines recommend screening T1DM patients for thyroid and celiac diseases. When positive, there is a lack of guidance on how to proceed. Nevertheless, if T1DM patients do have AITD or celiac disease, they qualify for an APS diagnosis, which signals a high pretest probability for additional autoimmunity. Our data show that among 198 patients meeting APS criteria at baseline, only 17/198 (8.6%) had a formal APS diagnosis documented in their medical records. Extended screening uncovered new autoantibody positivity in 39% and new autoimmune diseases in 11.5% of patients. In the end, this led us to signal an under-recognition of APS in T1DM. Based on this evidence, we do not advocate for universal, broad screening panels in routine practice. Instead, we argue that formal diagnostic recognition and medical record documentation of APS are essential first steps to prevent fading clinical awareness and trigger lifelong vigilance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42842096What 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.