Cited by 85Diabetes and associated disordersPancreatic function and diabetesGenomics and Rare Diseases

GCK-MODY in the US National Monogenic Diabetes Registry: frequently misdiagnosed and unnecessarily treated

Open access
Carmody, David, Naylor, Rochelle N., Bell, Charles D., Berry, Shivani, Montgomery, Jazzmyne T., Tadie, Elizabeth C., Hwang, Jessica L., Greeley, Siri Atma W. +1 more·2016·Acta Diabetologica

Abstract

Aims GCK-MODY leads to mildly elevated blood glucose typically not requiring therapy. It has been described in all ethnicities, but mainly in Caucasian Europeans. Here we describe our US cohort of GCK-MODY. Methods We examined the rates of detection of heterozygous mutations in the GCK gene in individuals referred to the US Monogenic Diabetes Registry with a phenotype consistent with GCK-MODY. We also assessed referral patterns, treatment and demography, including ethnicity, of the cohort. Results Deleterious heterozygous GCK mutations were found in 54.7 % of Registry probands selected for GCK sequencing for this study. Forty-nine percent were previously unnecessarily treated with glucose-lowering agents, causing hypoglycemia and other adverse effects in some of the subjects. The proportion of probands found to have a GCK mutation through research-based testing was similar across each ethnic group. However, together African-American, Latino and Asian subjects represented only 20.5 % of screened probands and 17.2 % of those with GCK-MODY, despite higher overall diabetes prevalence in these groups. Conclusions Our data show that a high detection rate of GCK-MODY is possible based on clinical phenotype and that prior to genetic diagnosis, a large percentage are inappropriately treated with glucose-lowering therapies. We also find low minority representation in our Registry, which may be due to disparities in diagnostic diabetes genetic testing and is an area needing further investigation.

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/s00592-016-0859-8

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Atypical diabetes is becoming increasingly difficult to precisely define in the absence of a definitive set of tests for either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

    “although admittedly, atypical diabetes is becoming increasingly dif fi cult to precisely de fi ne in the absence of a de fi nitive set of tests for either type of diabetes (158 -160,163 -169)”

    From 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: <i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024</i> (2024) · cites this paper as [159]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says GCK-MODY is misdiagnosed as type 1 or type 2 diabetes, and the Discussion says misdiagnosis is frequent. The paper does not say that atypical diabetes is becoming increasingly difficult to define or that this difficulty stems from a lack of definitive tests for type 1 and type 2 diabetes. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Diabetes occurring under 6 months of age is termed neonatal or congenital diabetes, and about 80-85% of cases can be found to have an underlying monogenic cause.

    “Diabetes occurring under 6 months of age is termed neonatal or congenital diabetes, and about 80 -85% of cases can be found to have an underlying monogenic cause (36,157 -160).”

    From 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: <i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024</i> (2024) · cites this paper as [159]

    The Discussion addresses genetic testing and underrecognition of GCK-MODY, not the definition or prevalence of monogenic neonatal diabetes. Searches for diabetes before six months and for an 80–85% monogenic cause found no passage in our copy supporting either part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carmody, D., Naylor, R. N., Bell, C. D., Berry, S., Montgomery, J. T., Tadie, E. C., Hwang, J. L., Greeley, S. A. W., & Philipson, L. H.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Naylor, Rochelle N.
Venue
Acta Diabetologica
Published
2016-04-22
Volume
53
Issue
5
Pages
703-708
ISSN
  • 0940-5429 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-5233
OpenAlex
W2339522457
Cited by
84
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
7.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Diabetologica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • American Diabetes Association (1-11-CT-41)
  • National Institutes of Health (P30DK020595, UL1RR024999, K23DK094866, K12-HS023007-01)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
GCK-MODY, monogenic diabetes, misdiagnosis, hypoglycemia, minority representation, genetic testing, diabetes registry
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Glucokinase, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Phenotype, Registries, United States, Selection Bias

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