Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28692646›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Biomarkers for predicting type 2 diabetes development-Can metabolomics improve on existing biomarkers?

Otto Savolainen, Björn Fagerberg, Mads Vendelbo Lind, Ann-Sofie Sandberg, Alastair B Ross, Göran Bergström

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Toward Systems-Level Metabolic Analysis in Endocrine Disorders and Cancer.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2023
    Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Metabolomics of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Otto SavolainenDivision of Food and Nutrition Science, Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Björn FagerbergWallenberg Laboratory for Cardiovascular Research at the Center for Cardiovascular and Metabolic Research, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Mads Vendelbo LindDivision of Food and Nutrition Science, Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Ann-Sofie SandbergDivision of Food and Nutrition Science, Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Alastair B RossDivision of Food and Nutrition Science, Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Göran BergströmDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Chalmers University of Technology · SESahlgrenska University Hospital · SEUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim was to determine if metabolomics could be used to build a predictive model for type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk that would improve prediction of T2D over current risk markers.

methodsGas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry metabolomics was used in a nested case-control study based on a screening sample of 64-year-old Caucasian women (n = 629). Candidate metabolic markers of T2D were identified in plasma obtained at baseline and the power to predict diabetes was tested in 69 incident cases occurring during 5.5 years follow-up. The metabolomics results were used as a standalone prediction model and in combination with established T2D predictive biomarkers for building eight T2D prediction models that were compared with each other based on their sensitivity and selectivity for predicting T2D.

resultsEstablished markers of T2D (impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, insulin resistance (HOMA), smoking, serum adiponectin)) alone, and in combination with metabolomics had the largest areas under the curve (AUC) (0.794 (95% confidence interval [0.738-0.850]) and 0.808 [0.749-0.867] respectively), with the standalone metabolomics model based on nine fasting plasma markers having a lower predictive power (0.657 [0.577-0.736]). Prediction based on non-blood based measures was 0.638 [0.565-0.711]).

conclusionsEstablished measures of T2D risk remain the best predictor of T2D risk in this population. Additional markers detected using metabolomics are likely related to these measures as they did not enhance the overall prediction in a combined model.

Indexed as

Area Under CurveBiomarkersDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansIncidenceMetabolomeMetabolomicsMiddle AgedRisk FactorsROC CurveBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID28692646
PMCPMC5503163
OpenAlexW2735640135

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.