Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40768045›Full record

ReviewDiabetologia2025

Perspectives on prevention of type 1 diabetes and heterogeneities.

Lars C Stene

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

1 author.

Lars C SteneDepartment of Chronic Diseases, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. lars.christian.stene@fhi.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8434-119X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preventing type 1 diabetes remains a significant challenge but ongoing efforts are bringing us closer to this goal. This article discusses some implications of heterogeneity and chance in relation to prevention of type 1 diabetes, particularly regarding interpretation of evidence and planning of future trials. Using simulations, I illustrate uncertainties in efficacy estimates in prevention trials with time-to-event endpoints, using the TN10 teplizumab trial as an example. I emphasise that risk heterogeneity does not equate to treatment effect heterogeneity. When factors modifying efficacy are taken into account, robust identification of treatment effect heterogeneity may require sample sizes approximately four times larger than those needed to determine overall efficacy in certain scenarios. Efficiency of prevention trials can be increased using 2 × 2 factorial designs investigating two treatment options. I also simulate statistical power in exploratory studies involving multiple testing with different strategies for handling potential type 1 diabetes endotypes. If endotypes are defined as subtypes of type 1 diabetes-related phenotypes with at least partially unique risk factors, it becomes clear that we should aim to discover actionable aetiological factors that are not endotype-specific. Subjective judgements and pragmatism will influence whether and how a prevention trial is planned. Current approaches target high-risk individuals, which reduces the required number of trial participants but increases the cost of identifying trial participants. A prevention trial targeting infants in the general population with a multivalent antiviral vaccine will likely need over 50,000 participants, depending on circumstances and assumptions. While such a trial is conceivable, it would demand robust safety data before initiation.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedClinical Trials as TopicHumansRisk FactorsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedteplizumabHeterogeneityHumanPreventionRandomised trialsReviewType 1 diabetesUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID40768045
PMCPMC12423218

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.