Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Combining Information from Common Type 2 Diabetes Risk Polymorphisms Improves Disease Prediction

Open access
Weedon, Michael N, McCarthy, Mark I, Hitman, Graham, Walker, Mark, Groves, Christopher J, Zeggini, Eleftheria, Rayner, N. William, Shields, Beverley, Owen, Katharine R, Hattersley, Andrew T, Frayling, Timothy M·2006·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A limited number of studies have assessed the risk of common diseases when combining information from several predisposing polymorphisms. In most cases, individual polymorphisms only moderately increase risk (approximately 20%), and they are thought to be unhelpful in assessing individuals' risk clinically. The value of analyzing multiple alleles simultaneously is not well studied. This is often because, for any given disease, very few common risk alleles have been confirmed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Three common variants (Lys23 of KCNJ11, Pro12 of PPARG, and the T allele at rs7903146 of TCF7L2) have been shown to predispose to type 2 diabetes mellitus across many large studies. Risk allele frequencies ranged from 0.30 to 0.88 in controls. To assess the combined effect of multiple susceptibility alleles, we genotyped these variants in a large case-control study (3,668 controls versus 2,409 cases). Individual allele odds ratios (ORs) ranged from 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 1.23) to 1.48 (95% CI, 1.36 to 1.60). We found no evidence of gene-gene interaction, and the risks of multiple alleles were consistent with a multiplicative model. Each additional risk allele increased the odds of type 2 diabetes by 1.28 (95% CI, 1.21 to 1.35) times. Participants with all six risk alleles had an OR of 5.71 (95% CI, 1.15 to 28.3) compared to those with no risk alleles. The 8.1% of participants that were double-homozygous for the risk alleles at TCF7L2 and Pro12Ala had an OR of 3.16 (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.50), compared to 4.3% with no TCF7L2 risk alleles and either no or one Glu23Lys or Pro12Ala risk alleles. CONCLUSIONS: Combining information from several known common risk polymorphisms allows the identification of population subgroups with markedly differing risks of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those obtained using single polymorphisms. This approach may have a role in future preventative measures for common, polygenic diseases.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030374

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Weedon, M. N., McCarthy, M. I., Hitman, G., Walker, M., Groves, C. J., Zeggini, E., Rayner, N. W., Shields, B., Owen, K. R., Hattersley, A. T., & Frayling, T. M.
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Published
2006-10-03
Volume
3
Issue
10
Pages
e374
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2080713361
Cited by
268
References
7
FWCI
17.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Combining Information from Common Type 2 Diabetes Risk Polymorphisms Improves Disease Prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030374
The paper
Weedon, M. N., McCarthy, M. I., Hitman, G., Walker, M., Groves, C. J., Zeggini, E., Rayner, N. W., Shields, B., Owen, K. R., Hattersley, A. T., & Frayling, T. M. (2006). Combining Information from Common Type 2 Diabetes Risk Polymorphisms Improves Disease Prediction. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030374

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.