The value of serum creatinine-to-cystatin C ratio in newly diagnosed ketosis-prone diabetes
Résumé fourni par la source
Purpose: Ketosis-prone diabetes (KPD) is a new subtype of diabetes distinct from traditional type 2 diabetes, and the role of muscle mass in KPD remains unclear. Serum creatinine-to-cystatin C ratio (CCR) has been identified as a marker of muscle mass. The present study aims to investigate the value of CCR in newly diagnosed KPD. Methods: Two hundred and ninety patients with newly diagnosed T2D were included in the study and were divided into T2D (n = 195) and KPD (n = 95) groups according to the occurrence of ketosis. The cutoff value of CCR in identifying KPD was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between CCR and KPD and the independent influences on KPD. Results: The serum CCR level of the KPD group was significantly higher than that of the T2D group. After adjustment for all confounders, the risk of KPD was significantly increased with elevated CCR levels. The optimal cutoff value for CCR was 69.775 for male and 63.365 for female, with areas under the ROC curve of 0.639 for male and 0.648 for female. Postprandial blood glucose and CCR were independent risk factors, whereas age and postprandial C-peptide were independent protective factors for the KPD. Conclusion: High levels of CCR are significantly associated with the odds of KPD, suggesting that higher muscle mass (estimated by CCR) may be linked to higher KPD incidence. Our study suggests that CCR may be a useful marker for the incidence of KPD, providing new insights into the mechanisms of KPD.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- The value of serum creatinine-to-cystatin C ratio in newly diagnosed ketosis-prone diabetes
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2026
- Éditeur
- Bioscientifica
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.