ArticleThe Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism2025
Circulating Proteomic Profiles Are Associated With Incident Type 2 Diabetes in Asian Populations.
Article in The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring Biomarkers in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus versus Normoglycemia Identified through High-Throughput Proteomics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of proteome research · 2026Pooled it
- Bridging the gap: A systematic approach to integrating serum and plasma proteomic datasets for biomarker studies.Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis · 2026Article
- Proteomics for precision nutrition: current evidence and future directions.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2026Review
- Uncovering the Molecular Landscape of Physical Activity: Proteomic Insights from the UK Biobank.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextType 2 diabetes (T2D) is a major global concern, with Asia at its epicenter in recent years. Proteins, products of gene transcription, serve as dynamic biomarkers for pinpointing perturbed pathways in disease development. Previous T2D proteomic association studies primarily focused on European populations.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between plasma proteins and the incidence of T2D in Asian individuals.
methodsWe examined the association of 4775 plasma proteins with incident T2D in a Singapore multi-ethnic cohort of 1659 Asian individuals (539 cases and 1120 controls) using logistic regression. We used 2-sample mendelian randomization and colocalization analysis to evaluate the causal relationship between proteins and T2D.
resultsOur analysis revealed 522 proteins that were associated with incident T2D after adjusting for age, sex, and ethnicity, and 17 proteins that remained statistically significantly associated after adjusting for other T2D risk factors such as fasting glucose, waist circumference, and triglycerides. Among the 522 proteins associated with incident T2D, the change in 205 plasma proteins, observed in parallel with the development of T2D at baseline and 6-year follow-up, were further associated with incident T2D. The associated proteins showed enrichment in neuron generation, glycosaminoglycan binding, and insulin-like growth factor binding. Two-sample mendelian randomization analysis suggested 3 plasma proteins, GSTA1, INHBC, and FGL1, play causal roles in the development of T2D, with colocalization evidence supporting GSTA1 and INHBC.
conclusionOur findings reveal plasma protein profiles linked to the onset of T2D in Asian populations, offering insights into the biological mechanisms of T2D development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.