Cited by 17Diabetes and associated disordersDiabetes Management and ResearchPancreatic function and diabetes

Slowly progressive insulin-dependent (type 1) diabetes positive for anti-GAD antibody ELISA test may be strongly associated with a future insulin-dependent state

Open access
Oikawa, Yoichi, Tanaka, Hajime, Uchida, Junko, Atsumi, Yoshihiro, Osawa, Masaya, Katsuki, Takeshi, Kawai, Toshihide, Shimada, Akira·2017·Endocrine Journal

Abstract

Slowly progressive insulin-dependent (type 1) diabetes mellitus (SPIDDM), believed to be caused by β-cell destruction through islet-cell autoimmunity, gradually progresses to an insulin-dependent state over time. Although the presence of anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody (GADA) is required for the diagnosis of SPIDDM, a recent change in the GADA assay kit from radioimmunoassay (RIA) to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) yields mismatched GADA test results between the two kits, leading to confusion in understanding the pathological conditions of SPIDDM in Japan. Thus, this study aimed to clarify the difference in the clinical characteristics of GADA-ELISA-positive and GADA-ELISA-negative patients originally diagnosed as SPIDDM by GADA-RIA test. As a result, 42 of 63 original GADA-RIA-positive SPIDDM patients (66.7%) were found to be GADA-ELISA-positive, whereas the remaining 21 patients (33.3%) were found to be GADA-ELISA-negative. In patients with shorter disease duration, GADA-ELISA-positive patients showed significantly lower serum C-peptide levels than GADA-ELISA-negative patients. Meanwhile, in patients with longer disease duration, serum C-peptide levels were comparably decreased in GADA-ELISA-positive and GADA-ELISA-negative patients. A significant inverse correlation between serum C-peptide level and disease duration was observed in GADA-ELISA-negative patients, but not in GADA-ELISA-positive patients, suggesting that insulin secretory capacity may be gradually impaired over time also in GADA-ELISA-negative SPIDDM patients. In conclusion, physicians should be aware that GADA-ELISA-positive SPIDDM may be strongly associated with a future insulin-dependent state. Meanwhile, physicians should be careful in treating GADA-ELISA-negative SPIDDM patients diagnosed as type 2 DM, and cautiously follow the clinical course, in accordance with SPIDDM.

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 · 10.1507/endocrj.ej16-0328

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • Autoantibody markers plus clinical presentation can help distinguish type 1 from type 2 diabetes in children and adults.

    “The presence or absence of autoimmune markers (autoantibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase [GAD65], pancreatic islet b cells [tyrosine phosphatase IA-2], and IA-2b zinc transporter [ZnT8], and/or insulin) in addition to the clinical presentation may help establish the correct diagnosis to distinguish between T1D and T2D in children or adults.22–27”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [25]

    The introductory passage under the Abstract heading identifies GAD, IA-2, insulin, and ZnT8 autoantibodies as important in diagnosing type 1 diabetes and says GAD or islet-cell antibodies can suggest slowly progressive type 1 diabetes in a non-insulin-dependent patient. But the study compares adult patients with slowly progressive type 1 and type 2 diabetes; it does not establish the claimed approach for children, and the Discussion says it could not investigate the other listed autoantibodies. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Oikawa, Y., Tanaka, H., Uchida, J., Atsumi, Y., Osawa, M., Katsuki, T., Kawai, T., & Shimada, A.
Affiliations
  • Saiseikai Central Hospital (JP)
  • Saitama Medical University (JP)
Venue
Endocrine Journal
Published
2017
Volume
64
Issue
2
Pages
163-170
ISSN
  • 0918-8959 (ISSN-L)
  • 1348-4540
OpenAlex
W2533492047
Cited by
17
References
14
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Endocrine Journal (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 › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies, islet autoimmunity, beta cell destruction, C-peptide, disease duration, type 2 diabetes misdiagnosis
MeSH terms
Aged, Autoantibodies, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Female, Glutamate Decarboxylase, Humans, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Autoimmunity, Disease Progression

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