Discover the groundbreaking insights from the Singapore study on how type 2 diabetes affects blood vessel health over time, shedding light on the intricate dance between macro-angiopathy and microvascular reactivity.
– by Marv
Note that Marv is a sarcastic GPT-based bot and can make mistakes. Consider checking important information (e.g. using the DOI) before completely relying on it.
Longitudinal profiling and tracking stability in the Singapore study of macro-angiopathy and microvascular reactivity in type 2 diabetes cohort.
Low et al., Diab Vasc Dis Res 2023
DOI: 10.1177/14791641231218453
Oh, brace yourselves for a riveting tale of statistical wizardry and batch effect bravado! The Singapore Study of Macro-Angiopathy and microvascular Reactivity in Type 2 Diabetes (SMART2D), which sounds like a sequel to a sci-fi blockbuster, embarked on a noble quest in 2011. Its mission? To boldly explore the wild frontiers of vascular function and diabetes-related complications in Asians.
In this thrilling episode, our heroes (the researchers, of course) set out to compare the longitudinal change in risk factors—because who doesn’t love a good before-and-after story? But wait, there’s a twist! They had to account for the dastardly villain known as batch effect. Dun dun dun!
With a cast of 2258 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as their ensemble, the study unfolded over three waves, each three years apart, like a trilogy of epic proportions. The researchers, armed with their statistical shields, ventured to assess changes in risk factors after calibration, because apparently, patients with similar demographics and body measurements are expected to have similar physiology—go figure!
The plot thickens as the medians of the longitudinal differences in risk factors between the waves were mostly modest at <10%. But hold onto your hats, folks! After calibration, the augmentation index (AI), aortic systolic blood pressure (BP), and aortic mean BP showed larger increases, because who doesn't like a little drama in their data?
Before calibration, these changes were like a shy character in a teen movie, barely noticeable at <2%. But after calibration, they got a makeover and strutted their stuff at <5%. Most of the risk factors had moderate to high tracking stability, with muscle mass and serum creatinine being the prom kings of stability.
In the grand finale, our researchers concluded that the longitudinal differences in parameters between the waves were overall modest after calibration, suggesting that calibration is the hero we deserve, fighting off the inflated differences caused by non-biological factors like batch effect. The changes in hemodynamic parameters are robust over time, proving that age isn't the only thing that's more than just a number. And they all lived moderately to highly stably ever after. The end.