Cited by 31Diabetes and associated disordersDiabetes Management and ResearchRetinal Diseases and Treatments

C-peptide and the classification of diabetes mellitus patients in the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study. Report number 6

Prior, Mary Jane, Prout, Thaddeus, Miller, Dayton, Ewart, Robin, Kumar, Dinesh·1993·Annals of Epidemiology

Abstract

The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS), conducted at 22 clinical centers during the period 1980 to 1989, collected baseline data on C-peptide levels after ingestion of Sustacal in 582 patients with diabetes mellitus, prior to enrollment in the trial. Data on several clinical factors associated with diabetes were also collected from all 3711 enrolled patients. C-peptide data were used to develop sets of clinical criteria for the classification of ETDRS patients and to compare and contrast definitions of type of diabetes used in previous studies. The distribution of C-peptide levels was strikingly bimodal, suggesting a division of study participants into two groups--those with levels at 80 pmol/L or less and those with more than 80 pmol/L of C-peptide after Sustacal ingestion. Constellations of clinical characteristics that could serve as proxies for C-peptide level were ascertained. The result was two sets of clinically developed definitions for type of diabetes in the ETDRS. According to the more restrictive set of definitions, three groups were identified, compared to two groups using the "broad" set of definitions. Discriminant analysis was also used to classify ETDRS patients, yielding similar results. A comparison of definitions of type of diabetes used in the ETDRS and in previous studies revealed that even in the absence of C-peptide data, clinically derived definitions provided good discrimination between type I and type II diabetes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/1047-2797(93)90004-n

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prior, M. J., Prout, T., Miller, D., Ewart, R., & Kumar, D.
Affiliations
  • Maryland Medical Research Institute (US)
  • Greater Baltimore Medical Center (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • University of Louisville (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Prior, Mary Jane
Venue
Annals of Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1993-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
9-17
ISSN
1047-2797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2072514425
Cited by
31
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
Keywords
C-peptide, diabetes classification, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study, discriminant analysis
MeSH terms
Adult, Aspirin, C-Peptide, Combined Modality Therapy, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic Retinopathy, Female, Humans, Light Coagulation, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Discriminant Analysis

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