The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prediction of IDDM in the General Population: Strategies Based on Combinations of Autoantibody Markers
Abstract
Strategies for assessing risk of progression to IDDM, based on single and combined autoantibody measurement, were evaluated in 2,855 schoolchildren (median age 11.4 years) and 256 children with newly diagnosed IDDM (median age 10.2 years), recruited to a population-based study in the Oxford region. In 256 children with IDDM, levels of antibodies ≥97.5th centile of the schoolchild population were found in 225 (88%) for islet cell antibodies (ICAs), in 190 (74%) for antibodies to GAD, in 193 (75%) for antibodies to protein tyro-sine phosphatase IA-2 (IA-2), and in 177 (69%) for autoantibodies to insulin (IAAs). Estimates of risk of progression to IDDM within 10 years, derived by comparing the distribution of antibody markers in the two populations (schoolchildren and children with IDDM), were 6.7% (ICAs), 6.6% (GAD antibodies), 5.6% (IA-2 antibodies), and 4.8% (IAAs) for schoolchildren with levels above the 97.5th centile, increasing to 20, 23, 24, and 11%, respectively, for antibody levels >99.5th centile. Most children with IDDM had multiple antibody markers, and 89% of those diagnosed over age 10 years had ≥2 antibodies above the 97.5th centile, as compared against 0.7% of schoolchildren, in whom this combination gave a 27% 10-year estimated risk of IDDM. Risk increased but sensitivity fell as combined antibody thresholds were raised, or the number of antibodies above the threshold was increased. Strategies based on detection of ≥2 antibodies with primary testing for GAD and IA-2 antibodies and second line testing for ICAs and/or IAAs were evaluated. Detection of at least two markers selected from GAD antibodies ≥97.5th centile and/or IA-2 antibodies ≥99.5th centile and/or ICAs ≥97.5th centile identified 0.25% of schoolchildren and 83% of children with newly diagnosed IDDM, with an estimated risk of 71% (95% CI 57–91). Although confirmation from prospective studies is still needed, this analysis suggests that antibody combinations can predict diabetes in the general population.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Gale, E. A. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)15786-3 · Cited by 534
Self-citationPatterson, C. C., Harjutsalo, V., Rosenbauer, J., Neu, A., Cinek, O., Skrivarhaug, T., Rami-Merhar, B., Soltesz, G., Svensson, J., Parslow, R. C., et al. (2019) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-018-4763-3 · Cited by 512
Self-citationYu, L., Robles, D. T., Abiru, N., Kaur, P., Rewers, M., Kelemen, K., & Eisenbarth, G. S. (2000) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.040556697 · Cited by 450
Type 1 diabetes associated autoimmunity: natural history, genetic associations and screening
Barker, J. M. (2006) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2005-1679 · Cited by 350
Autoimmune type 1 diabetes: resolved and unresolved issues
Notkins, A. L., & Lernmark, Å. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci14257 · Cited by 323
Metadata
- Authors
- Bingley, P. J., Bonifacio, E., Williams, A. J. K., Genovese, S., Bottazzo, G. F., & Gale, E. A. M.
- Venue
- Diabetes
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 1997-11-01
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1701-1710
- ISSN
- 0012-1797 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-327X
- OpenAlex
- W2143450422
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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 IDDM in the General Population: Strategies Based on Combinations of Autoantibody Markers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diab.46.11.1701
- The paper
- Bingley, P. J., Bonifacio, E., Williams, A. J. K., Genovese, S., Bottazzo, G. F., & Gale, E. A. M. (1997). Prediction of IDDM in the General Population: Strategies Based on Combinations of Autoantibody Markers. Diabetes. https://doi.org/10.2337/diab.46.11.1701
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.