ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Associations between glycated albumin and current measures of glycaemic control in Saudi adults.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current dysglycaemia detection methods have limits; glycated albumin (GA), unaffected by conditions that distort HbA1c, is proposed as an alternative. We aimed to estimate the relationship between various glycaemic parameters and their association with GA in Saudi adults to evaluate GA potential utility in screening, detecting, and monitoring diabetes (DM) and intermediate hyperglycaemia (IH). Method: A total of 132 biobank serum samples (-80°C) representing a wide glycaemia range, using HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose -FPG, and 1 hour plasma glucose- 1h-PG data. Serum GA was measured by ELISA and expressed as %. Correlations with glycaemic markers were assessed, group means (normoglycaemia, IH, DM) were compared, and diagnostic performance evaluated by ROC analysis. Optimal GA cut-offs for dysglycaemia and DM were determined, with significance set at P< 0.05. Results: Used measures of glycaemia did not consistently classify glycaemic status in the same way. The groups with IH and DM had significantly higher mean GA values compared with the normoglycaemia group (P<0.001). GA values correlated significantly with all glycaemic markers (P<0.001), showing the strongest correlation with HbA1c, and the weakest with 1h-PG. the optimal GA cut-off values for detecting dysglycaemia was 13.9% (Sensitivity= 0.786, specificity= 0.917), and 14.7% (Sensitivity= 0.857, specificity= 0.747) for DM. Conclusion: GA correlated significantly with other markers and can be suggested as an alternative to detect and monitor glycaemic status among Saudis. Further research is required to determine ranges in our population.
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.