Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prediction of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in siblings of children with diabetes. A population-based study. The Childhood Diabetes in Finland Study Group.

Open access
Kulmala, P, Savola, K, Petersen, J S, Vähäsalo, P, Karjalainen, J, Löppönen, T, Dyrberg, T, Akerblom, H K, Knip, M·1998·Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract

An unselected population of 755 siblings of children with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) was studied to evaluate the predictive characteristics of islet cell antibodies (ICA), antibodies to the IA-2 protein (IA-2A), antibodies to the 65-kD isoform of glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADA), insulin autoantibodies (IAA), and combinations of these markers. We also evaluated whether the histochemical ICA test could be replaced by the combined detection of other markers. 32 siblings progressed to IDDM within 7.7 yr of the initial sample taken at or close to the diagnosis of the index case (median follow-up, 9.1 yr). The positive predictive values of ICA, IA-2A, GADA, and IAA were 43, 55, 42, and 29%, and their sensitivities 81, 69, 69, and 25%, respectively. In contrast to the other three antibody specificities, GADA levels were not related to the risk for IDDM. The risk for IDDM in siblings with four, three, two, one, or no antibodies was 40, 70, 25, 2, and 0.8%, respectively. Combined screening for IA-2A and GADA identified 70% of all ICA-positive siblings, and all of the ICA-positive progressors were also positive for at least one of the three other markers. The sensitivity of the combined analysis of IA-2A and GADA was 81%, and the positive predictive value was 41%. In conclusion, combined screening for IA-2A and GADA may replace the ICA assay, giving comparable sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. Accurate assessment of the risk for IDDM in siblings is complicated, as not even all those with four antibody specificities contract the disease, and some with only one or no antibodies initially will progress to IDDM.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1172/jci119879

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 42 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Kulmala, P., Savola, K., Petersen, J. S., Vähäsalo, P., Karjalainen, J., Löppönen, T., Dyrberg, T., Akerblom, H. K., & Knip, M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Investigation
Published
1998-01-15
Volume
101
Issue
2
Pages
327-336
ISSN
0021-9738 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092377833
Cited by
287
References
42
FWCI
12.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Prediction of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in siblings of children with diabetes. A population-based study. The Childhood Diabetes in Finland Study Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1172/jci119879
The paper
Kulmala, P., Savola, K., Petersen, J. S., Vähäsalo, P., Karjalainen, J., Löppönen, T., Dyrberg, T., Akerblom, H. K., & Knip, M. (1998). Prediction of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in siblings of children with diabetes. A population-based study. The Childhood Diabetes in Finland Study Group. Journal of Clinical Investigation. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci119879

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.