Cited by 939Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyDiabetes and associated disordersNutrition, Genetics, and Disease

Clinical risk factors, DNA variants, and the development of type 2 diabetes

Open access
Lyssenko, Valeriya, Jonsson, Anna, Almgren, Peter, Pulizzi, Nicoló, Isomaa, Bo, Tuomi, Tiinamaija, Berglund, Göran, Altshuler, David +2 more·2008·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is thought to develop from an interaction between environmental and genetic factors. We examined whether clinical or genetic factors or both could predict progression to diabetes in two prospective cohorts. METHODS: We genotyped 16 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and examined clinical factors in 16,061 Swedish and 2770 Finnish subjects. Type 2 diabetes developed in 2201 (11.7%) of these subjects during a median follow-up period of 23.5 years. We also studied the effect of genetic variants on changes in insulin secretion and action over time. RESULTS: Strong predictors of diabetes were a family history of the disease, an increased body-mass index, elevated liver-enzyme levels, current smoking status, and reduced measures of insulin secretion and action. Variants in 11 genes (TCF7L2, PPARG, FTO, KCNJ11, NOTCH2, WFS1, CDKAL1, IGF2BP2, SLC30A8, JAZF1, and HHEX) were significantly associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes independently of clinical risk factors; variants in 8 of these genes were associated with impaired beta-cell function. The addition of specific genetic information to clinical factors slightly improved the prediction of future diabetes, with a slight increase in the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve from 0.74 to 0.75; however, the magnitude of the increase was significant (P=1.0x10(-4)). The discriminative power of genetic risk factors improved with an increasing duration of follow-up, whereas that of clinical risk factors decreased. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with clinical risk factors alone, common genetic variants associated with the risk of diabetes had a small effect on the ability to predict the future development of type 2 diabetes. The value of genetic factors increased with an increasing duration of follow-up.

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa0801869

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • In prospective studies, decreases in the disposition index, the product of insulin secretion and SI, are a strong predictor of diabetes onset and worsening of metabolic function pre- and postdiagnosis.

    “In prospective studies, decreases in the disposition index, the product of insulin secretion and SI, are a strong predictor of diabetes onset and worsening of metabolic function pre- and postdiagnosis (53).”

    From Sleep Restriction for 1 Week Reduces Insulin Sensitivity in Healthy Men (2010) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Measurements section defines the disposition index as insulin secretion adjusted for insulin sensitivity (CIR × ISI), and Clinical Factors Predicting Incidence of Diabetes calls it a strong predictor of future diabetes. The cited passages do not establish that decreases in the index predict worsening metabolic function both before and after diagnosis; the reported longitudinal analysis concerns subjects who did not have diabetes. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Together these genes do not explain much of the genetic basis of type 2 diabetes; genotype risk scores only slightly improve prediction compared to common clinical risk factors.

    “Together these genes do not appear to explain much of the genetic basis of the disease with the use of genotype risk scores only slightly improving prediction of subsequent diabetes compared to common clinical risk factors22,23.”
  • The relative risks associated with elevated amino acids were comparable to or higher than those associated with higher age, fasting glucose, or body mass index in prior population-based studies.

    “Indeed, the relative risks associated with elevated amino acids were comparable to, or higher than, those associated with higher age, fasting glucose, or body mass index in prior population-based studies28.”

    From Metabolite profiles and the risk of developing diabetes (2011) · cites this paper as [28]

  • Known diabetes polymorphisms add modestly to risk assessment, being associated with 5% to 37% increases in relative risk.

    “There has been interest in genetic risk prediction, but the known diabetes polymorphisms add modestly to risk assessment27,28. For instance, known polymorphisms are only associated with 5% to 37% increases in the relative risk of diabetes”

    From Metabolite profiles and the risk of developing diabetes (2011) · cites this paper as [28]

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
Lyssenko, V., Jonsson, A., Almgren, P., Pulizzi, N., Isomaa, B., Tuomi, T., Berglund, G., Altshuler, D., Nilsson, P., & Groop, L.
Affiliations
  • Lund University (SE)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Broad Institute (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2008-11-20
Volume
359
Issue
21
Pages
2220-2232
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2165796078
Cited by
938
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 76 · 2013: 90 · 2012: 106
FWCI
55.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, genetic risk factors, single nucleotide polymorphisms, clinical risk factors, diabetes prediction, TCF7L2, PPARγ, FTO, KCNJ11, Notch2, WFS1, CDKAL1, IGF2BP2, SLC30A8, JAZF1, HHEX, beta-cell function, insulin secretion, insulin action, family history (medicine), body mass index, smoking, liver enzymes, gene-environment interaction
MeSH terms
Insulin Secretion, Adult, Transaminases, Blood Glucose, Blood Pressure, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Finland, Follow-Up Studies, Genotype, Humans, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Proteins, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, Smoking, Sweden, Body Mass Index, Logistic Models, Odds Ratio, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide

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