jdm

Journal of Diabetes & Metabolism

ISSN - 2155-6156

Short Communication - (2023) Volume 14, Issue 6

Finding the Best Survey-Based Algorithms to Differentiate the Type of Diabetes Among Adults with Diabetes

Jennifer Goney*
 
*Correspondence: Jennifer Goney, Westat, 1600 Research Blvd., Rockville, USA, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

Diabetes is a complex metabolic disorder characterized by elevated blood sugar levels, and it affects millions of individuals worldwide. Among the various types of diabetes, type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) are the most prevalent [1]. Distinguishing between these two types of diabetes is crucial for appropriate treatment and management strategies, as they have distinct underlying causes, disease progression, and treatment approaches. While laboratory tests and clinical assessments provide accurate means of determining diabetes type, they may not always be readily available or feasible, particularly in resource-limited settings [2 , 3] In such cases, surveybased algorithms that utilize self-reported information can offer an alternative approach to differentiate diabetes types. This article aims to explore and identify optimal survey-based algorithms that effectively distinguish diabetes type among adults with diabetes [4].

The development and utilization of survey-based algorithms for diabetes type classification have gained significant attention in recent years. These algorithms leverage self-reported data obtained through well-designed questionnaires and surveys to discern the characteristics and clinical features that differentiate T1D and T2D. By analyzing a range of factors, including age at diagnosis, body mass index (BMI), family history, symptoms, medication usage, and other relevant variables, these algorithms aim to identify patterns and associations that can effectively differentiate between the two types of diabetes [5].

Accurate classification of diabetes type is crucial for several reasons. It facilitates appropriate treatment selection, as T1D typically requires insulin therapy, while T2D may be managed through lifestyle modifications, oral medications, or insulin depending on disease progression. Additionally, diabetes type classification helps identify individuals at risk of developing complications associated with each specific type, enabling targeted interventions and monitoring [6].

The development of optimal survey-based algorithms requires a robust and systematic approach. This involves conducting a comprehensive review of existing literature and studies that have explored the effectiveness of survey-based algorithms in distinguishing diabetes types. By identifying and analyzing relevant survey variables that have shown promise in previous research, researchers can develop and refine algorithms that provide accurate and reliable diabetes type classification [7, 8].

The goal of this study is to evaluate and identify the most effective surveybased algorithms for distinguishing diabetes type among adults with diabetes. By utilizing self-reported data obtained through well-designed surveys, these algorithms have the potential to provide an accessible and costeffective means of diabetes type classification, particularly in settings where laboratory tests may be limited. The findings of this study will contribute to advancing our understanding of survey-based algorithms and their utility in differentiating T1D and T2D. Ultimately, these algorithms have the potential to improve diabetes management, inform healthcare decision-making, and enhance the quality of care provided to individuals with diabetes [9- 11].

Literature review

A comprehensive review of existing studies and literature on survey-based algorithms for distinguishing diabetes type was conducted.

Studies that assessed the accuracy and validity of survey-based algorithms in identifying T1D and T2D were identified and analysed [12].

Selection of survey variables

Based on the literature review, a set of potential survey variables that could differentiate between T1D and T2D was identified.

These variables may include age at diagnosis, body mass index (BMI), family history, presence of autoimmune conditions, insulin usage, and other relevant factors [13].

Dataset and participant recruitment

A cohort of adults with diabetes was recruited, comprising individuals with known T1D and T2D diagnoses.

Data collection involved self-reported survey responses, including the identified survey variables [14].

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population.

Various statistical techniques, such as logistic regression, decision tree analysis, or machine learning algorithms, were employed to develop and evaluate survey-based algorithms.

The algorithms were trained and tested on the dataset to determine their accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value in distinguishing diabetes type [15, 16].

Algorithm development and validation

Iterative analysis and refinement of the survey-based algorithms were conducted to identify the most accurate and reliable algorithm(s). Validation of the final algorithm(s) was performed using external datasets or cross-validation techniques to assess generalizability [17].

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval and informed consent procedures were followed in accordance with institutional guidelines and regulations.

Conclusion

Identifying optimal survey-based algorithms to distinguish diabetes type among adults with diabetes has the potential to improve diabetes management and healthcare delivery. By utilizing self-reported survey variables, this approach can provide a cost-effective and accessible means of classifying diabetes type in various healthcare settings. The results of this study will contribute to advancing our understanding of survey-based algorithms and their utility in accurately distinguishing between T1D and T2D, ultimately benefiting individuals with diabetes and enhancing diabetes care and research.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

References

  1. Bluestone JA, Herold K, Eisenbarth G Genetics, pathogenesis and clinical interventions in type 1 diabetes. Nature. 464: 1293-1300.
  2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  3. Atkinson MA, Eisenbarth GS, Michels AW (2014) Type 1 diabetes. Lancet 383: 69-82.
  4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  5. Wild S, Roglig G, Green A, Sicree R, King H (2004) Global prevalence of diabetes. Estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care27: 1047-1053.
  6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  7. Cooper JG, Claudi T, Thordarson HB, Løvaas KF, Carlsen S, et al. (2013) Treatment of type 1 diabetes in the specialist health service — data from the Norwegian Diabetes Register for Adults. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 133: 2257-2262.
  8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  9. Ali MK, Bullard KM, Saaddine JB, Cowie CC, Imperatore G, et al. (2013) Achievement of goals in U.S. Diabetes Care 1999–2010. N Engl J Med 368: 1613-1624.
  10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  11. JE Aikens (2012) Prospective associations between emotional distress and poor outcomes in type 2 diabetes.Diabetes Care 35: 2472-2478.
  12. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  13. Peyrot M, McMurry JF, Krueger DF (1999) A biopsychosocial model of glycemic control in diabetes: stress, coping and regimen adherence. J Health Soc Behav 40: 141-158.
  14. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  15. Novota P, Kolostova K, Pinterova D, Novak J, Treslova L, et al. (2005) Interleukin IL-18 gene promoter polymorphisms in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and latent autoimmune diabetes in adults. Immunol Lett 96(2): 247-251.
  16. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  17. Mojtahedi Z, Naeimi S, Farjadian S, Omrani GR, Ghaderi A (2006) Association of IL-18 promoter polymorphisms with predisposition to Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 23(3): 235-239.
  18. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  19. Brink S, Laffel L, Likitmaskul S (2009) Sick day management in children and adolescents with diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 12: 146-153.
  20. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  21. Delamater AM (2009) Psychological care of children and adolescents with diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 12: 175-184.
  22. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  23. American Diabetes Association (2009) Diabetes care in the school and day care setting. Diabetes Care 32: 68-72.
  24. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  25. Ford-Adams ME, Murphy NP, Moore EJ, Edge JA, Ong KL, et al. Insulin lispro: a potential role in preventing nocturnal hypoglycaemia in young children with diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 20: 656-660.
  26. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  27. Pociot F, McDermott MF(2002) Genetics of type 1 diabetes mellitus. Genes Immun. 2002 3(5): 235-249.
  28. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  29. Pociot F, Akolkar B, Concannon P, Erlich HA, Julier C, et al. (2010) Genetics of type 1 diabetes: what’s next? Diabetes 59(7): 1561-1571.
  30. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  31. Todd JA (2010) Etiology of type 1 diabetes. Immunity 32(4): 457-467.
  32. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  33. Novota P, Kolostova K, Pinterova D, Novak J, Treslova L, et al. (2005) Interleukin IL-18 gene promoter polymorphisms in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and latent autoimmune diabetes in adults. Immunol Lett 96(2): 247-251.
  34. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

Author Info

Jennifer Goney*
 
Westat, 1600 Research Blvd., Rockville, USA
 

Citation: Jennifer Goney. Finding the Best Survey-Based Algorithms to Differentiate the Type of Diabetes among Adults with Diabetes. J Diabetes Metab, 2023, 14(6): 1011.

Received: 30-May-2023, Manuscript No. jdm-23-25157; Editor assigned: 02-Jun-2023, Pre QC No. jdm-23-25157(PQ); Reviewed: 16-Jun-2023, QC No. jdm-23-25157; Revised: 23-Jun-2023, Manuscript No. jdm-23-25157(R); Published: 30-Jun-2023, DOI: 10.35248/2155-6156.10001011

Copyright: © 2023 Goney J. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.