The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Some answers, more controversy, from UKPDS
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group (1995) · Diabetes · doi:10.2337/diab.44.11.1249 · Cited by 1,923
Cited by
Prevalence and predictors of recurrence of major depressive disorder in the adult population
Hardeveld, F., Spijker, J., De Graaf, R., Nolen, W. A., & Beekman, A. T. F. (2010) · Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01519.x · Cited by 486
Chemistry and Biochemistry of Type 2 Diabetes
Ross, S. A., Gulve, E. A., & Wang, M. (2004) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr0204653 · Cited by 323
The Role of Sulphonylureas in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Rendell, M. (2004) · Drugs · doi:10.2165/00003495-200464120-00006 · Cited by 308
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors for type 2 diabetes mellitus
Richter, B., Bandeira-Echtler, E., Bergerhoff, K., & Lerch, C. (2008) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006739.pub2 · Cited by 308
Evans, J. M. M., Ogston, S. A., Emslie-Smith, A., & Morris, A. D. (2006) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-006-0176-9 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Nathan, D. M.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1998-09
- Volume
- 352
- Issue
- 9131
- Pages
- 832-833
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W1990490378
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Some answers, more controversy, from UKPDS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(98)22937-0
- The paper
- Nathan, D. M. (1998). Some answers, more controversy, from UKPDS. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(98)22937-0
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
