Cited by 27Diabetes and associated disordersDiabetes Management and ResearchPancreatic function and diabetes

A comparison of the prevalence of islet autoantibodies in children from two countries with differing incidence of diabetes

Open access
Marčiulionytė, D., Williams, A. J. K., Bingley, P. J., Urbonaitė, B., Gale, E. A. M.·2001·Diabetologia

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis To examine the prevalence of sub-: clinical islet autoimmunity in children from two countries with a twofold to threefold difference in incidence of childhood Type I (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus.Methods Sera were collected from 2,860 English and 3,053 Lithuanian non-diabetic schoolchildren according to the same protocol. Occult diabetes was excluded by blood glucose measurement. Antibodies to GAD and the protein tyrosine phosphatase IA-2 were measured with standardised radiobinding assays in a single laboratory. Islet cell antibodies and insulin autoantibodies were additionally measured in all samples with GAD and/or IA-2 antibody levels above the 97.5th centile of the English schoolchildren.Results Of Lithuanian schoolchildren 2.7 % had GAD antibodies above the 97.5th centile of the English schoolchildren but only 0.2 % had antibodies to IA-2 above this threshold (p < 0.001). Islet cell and/ or insulin autoantibodies above the 97.5th centile were found in 22 Lithuanian and 16 English schoolchildren and the overall prevalence of two or more antibodies on or above the 97.5th centile was similar [0.7 % (0.5-1.1) vs 0.6 % (0.4-1.0)] in the two cohorts.Conclusion/interpretation The prevalence of multiple antibody markers was similar in the cohorts from the two populations, despite the two to three-fold difference in incidence of diabetes. The unexpectedly high prevalence of subclinical islet autoimmunity suggests that the incidence of diabetes in Lithuania is likely to increase in the near future.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s001250051574

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previously found IA-2A prevalence was 10-fold lower (0.2 versus 2.4%) in 3053 Lithuanian schoolchildren compared with 2860 English schoolchildren of similar age.

    “We found previously that the prevalence of autoantibodies to islet antigen‐2 (IA‐2A) was 10‐fold lower (0·2 versus 2·4%) in 3053 schoolchildren from Lithuania, with a diabetes incidence of 7·1 cases per 100 000/year, compared with 2860 schoolchildren of a similar age from the United Kingdom, which at that time had an incidence of 17 cases per 100 000/year [ 2 ].”
  • The frequency of IAA, GADA and multiple autoantibodies (mAab, including ICA) was similar in the two groups.

    “The frequency of autoantibodies to insulin (IAA), glutamate decarboxylase (GADA) and multiple autoantibodies [mAab, which included islet cell antibodies (ICA)] was similar in the two groups.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Gardner SG, Bingley PJ, Sawtell PA et al. (1997) Rising in- cidence of insulin dependent diabetes in children under 5 years in the Oxford region: time trend analysis. BMJ 315: 713±717

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marčiulionytė, D., Williams, A. J. K., Bingley, P. J., Urbonaitė, B., & Gale, E. A. M.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
2001-01-10
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
16-21
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2158349258
Cited by
27
References
21
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
Keywords
islet autoantibodies, type 1 diabetes, pediatric diabetes, glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies, IA-2 autoantibodies, islet cell antibodies, insulin autoantibodies, prevalence, diabetes incidence, cross-population comparison, Lithuanian children, English children
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Autoantibodies, Child, Child, Preschool, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Glutamate Decarboxylase, United Kingdom, Humans, Islets of Langerhans, Lithuania, Male

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review