Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 905

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

Metabolomics in Prediabetes and Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Guasch-Ferré, Marta, Hruby, Adela, Toledo, Estefanía, Clish, Clary B., Martínez-González, Miguel A., Salas-Salvadó, Jordi, Hu, Frank B.·2016·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of cross-sectional and prospective human studies evaluating metabolite markers identified using high-throughput metabolomics techniques on prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through August 2015. We conducted a qualitative review of cross-sectional and prospective studies. Additionally, meta-analyses of metabolite markers, with data estimates from at least three prospective studies, and type 2 diabetes risk were conducted, and multivariable-adjusted relative risks of type 2 diabetes were calculated per study-specific SD difference in a given metabolite. RESULTS: We identified 27 cross-sectional and 19 prospective publications reporting associations of metabolites and prediabetes and/or type 2 diabetes. Carbohydrate (glucose and fructose), lipid (phospholipids, sphingomyelins, and triglycerides), and amino acid (branched-chain amino acids, aromatic amino acids, glycine, and glutamine) metabolites were higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes compared with control subjects. Prospective studies provided evidence that blood concentrations of several metabolites, including hexoses, branched-chain amino acids, aromatic amino acids, phospholipids, and triglycerides, were associated with the incidence of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. We meta-analyzed results from eight prospective studies that reported risk estimates for metabolites and type 2 diabetes, including 8,000 individuals of whom 1,940 had type 2 diabetes. We found 36% higher risk of type 2 diabetes per study-specific SD difference for isoleucine (pooled relative risk 1.36 [1.24–1.48]; I2 = 9.5%), 36% for leucine (1.36 [1.17–1.58]; I2 = 37.4%), 35% for valine (1.35 [1.19–1.53]; I2 = 45.8%), 36% for tyrosine (1.36 [1.19–1.55]; I2 = 51.6%), and 26% for phenylalanine (1.26 [1.10–1.44]; I2 = 56%). Glycine and glutamine were inversely associated with type 2 diabetes risk (0.89 [0.81–0.96] and 0.85 [0.82–0.89], respectively; both I2 = 0.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In studies using high-throughput metabolomics, several blood amino acids appear to be consistently associated with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

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 · 10.2337/dc15-2251

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 905

Metadata

Authors
Guasch-Ferré, M., Hruby, A., Toledo, E., Clish, C. B., Martínez-González, M. A., Salas-Salvadó, J., & Hu, F. B.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2016-04-14
Volume
39
Issue
5
Pages
833-846
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2338627428
Cited by
905
References
7
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Metabolomics in Prediabetes and Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/dc15-2251
The paper
Guasch-Ferré, M., Hruby, A., Toledo, E., Clish, C. B., Martínez-González, M. A., Salas-Salvadó, J., & Hu, F. B. (2016). Metabolomics in Prediabetes and Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc15-2251

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.