Cited by 2,689Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes and associated disordersDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus

Open access
The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus·2003·Diabetes Care

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/diacare.26.2007.s5

Cites

148 of 148 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?

  • In 2003, the ADA adopted the new IFG range of 100-125 mg/dL (5.6-6.9 mmol/L) to better define IFG so that the population risk of developing diabetes with IFG would be similar to that with IGT.

    “However , in 2003 the ADA adopted the new range of 100 -125 mg/dL (5.6 -6.9 mmol/L) to better de fi ne IFG so that the population risk of developing diabetes with IFG would be similar to that with IGT (11).”

    From 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: <i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024</i> (2024) · cites this paper as [11]

    In “The new criteria” (p. 8), the committee defines IFG as fasting plasma glucose of 110 to <126 mg/dL, not 100–125 mg/dL. The paper describes both IFG and IGT as risk factors for future diabetes, but it does not say the lower IFG threshold was adopted to make their population risks similar. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus
Corresponding author
The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2003-01-01
Volume
26
Issue
suppl_1
Pages
s5-s20
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W4234393699
Cited by
2,689
References
132
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 131 · 2019: 96 · 2018: 131 · 2017: 123 · 2016: 143 · 2015: 137 · 2014: 120 · 2013: 144 · 2012: 143
FWCI
74.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, diagnosis, classification, expert committee report
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Pregnancy, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Diabetes, Gestational

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