Talk:Type 3 diabetes

I've found an extremely comprehensive review of the literature here , with 130 citations :

^[1]

The link is also apparent from another wiki page on memantine : "Memantine is used to treat moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease. It acts on the glutamatergic system by blocking NMDA receptors. It was first synthesized by Eli Lilly and Company in 1968 as a potential agent to treat diabetes; the NMDA activity was discovered in the 1980s."

Darwinerasmus (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The redirect for "Not to be confused with" at the beginning is excellent. The lead starts out clearly. Saying that this diagnosis is not embraced by the the medical community is important, though a reference supporting this would give it more weight. Are Neurofibrillary tangles made up of hyperphorphorylated tau proteins or are they separate? The "and" makes it seem like they are distinct from one another. If possible, it might be helpful to add more Wikipedia links for terms like "neurofibrillary tangles" and "hypephosphorylated tau" so that information can be accessed more quickly.

It could be helpful to add a brief bit on what GSK-3beta does in the brain. The Ramesk reference^[1] you cited mentions that GSK-3beta directly binds Tau protein to microtubles, so it may be possible to expand the sentence "Glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK-3β) plays a key role in the formation of the neurofibrillary tangles." into 2-3 sentences showing how they interact.

Overall, this is a great start to an entry on a topic that is just beginning to be discussed but is not commonly known in medicine.

Thank you so much for the feed back! I love the idea of adding the links to tau proteins and neurofibrillary tangles I am going to implement that immediately. Cryptogirl757 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

This article is currently under review with further edits to be made by Doctor of Medicine students from the University of Notre Dame as part of the Wikipedia Project Medicine in an effort to improve the page quality and content. Edits shall be complete within the next fortnight. We kindly ask for your patience during this process.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missfirefly (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of the phrasing in this article was quite odd which normally indicates the content is copied and words changed using thesaurus, and so is the content. "Melatonin is discharged" = PMC5539639 paragraph 2, some words changed. The entire treatment section is paraphrasing of this article PMC5501038, which is an opinion piece, not indicative of the content.

The sources do not line up with the text.

I note that this is part of an educational assignment so I am pinging the instructors and student.

User:MimiGregg Carrolquadrio User:Zmrob25

Additionally it would be great if the referencing section can be fixed, mistakenly the University's proxy links rather than dois or PMIDs have been linked, this is hard to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PainProf (talk • contribs) 20:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Now, there are no more usyd links and the "Melatonin is discharged" part is only two sentences, so I'll remove the tag. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems from the sources T3D is just another name for Alzheimer's disease, albeit with a different proposed cause. That being the case, shouldn't this article be blanked and redirected to Alzheimer's disease, where a few sentences can outline what T3D is proposed to be? Bon courage (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I just removed the Management section at the end, because it was not supported by the cited sources. This section listed melatonin and GLP-1, as if these agents are currently used in management of AD/T3D. The sources do not support having these substances listed.

• Melatonin: Cites Song et al: . This paper discusses the role of melatonin in AD pathology, not as a treatment. Its only mention of melatonin for "management" is this sentence: "Clinically, melatonin and its agonist have been regarded as treatments for AD. (refs)" Of those references, the first is a small pilot study, and the second is a completely irrelevant review of melatonin as an analgesic. The other paper cited for melatonin is , which looks at melatonin secretion by the brain in type 2 diabetes and never mentions melatonin for "management" of anything.
• GLP-1: Cites two papers. This one: is essentially just a hypothesis, concluding with "GLP-1 is a good candidate for improving cognitive dysfunction...GLP-1 could attenuate the inflammatory response..." (emphasis added). Also note this comes from the MDPI journal International Journal of Molecular Sciences, which was recently removed from the Finnish ranking system for academic journals: . I suspect this would fail WP:MEDRS. The second paper: , is a good review that discusses several ongoing clinical studies of GLP-1 agonists (not GLP-1 itself) in treatment of AD, but stops far short of saying these drugs can be used to manage the disease.

TL;DR: Whoever wrote the "Management" section either didn't read the references or didn't understand them, as neither of them says melatonin or GLP-1 is useful in managing T3D or AD, only that some preliminary studies have been conducted. And any section on "management" of a non-recognized disease would be inherently speculative.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

So you have decided to delete a section on management because it doesn't address treatment only pathology??

• • Treatment vs Pathology: Understanding the Difference**

In essence, pathology is the foundation for treatment, as it helps healthcare professionals identify the root cause of a condition, which in turn guides the development of an effective treatment plan.

• **Treatment** refers to the medical interventions or therapies aimed at curing, managing, or alleviating a disease or condition. This can include medications, surgeries, therapies, or lifestyle changes.
• **Pathology**, on the other hand, is the study of diseases and their effects on the body. It involves examining tissues, cells, and bodily fluids to diagnose and understand the underlying causes of a disease.

So pathology stands at the root of treatment. You cannot achieve the later without the former.

So lets look at Management vs treatment

• Medical management is a broader, ongoing approach to managing a patient's health, especially for chronic conditions.
• Treatment refers to specific actions taken to treat or address a particular disease or condition, usually more short-term or focused on a specific symptom or problem.

To me pathology is part of medical management. But instead your yet again going round with a wrecking ball because you don't understand nor are seemingly willing to learn the nuances involved.

so If I get a chance I am going to revoke your edits - and suggest that a more senior editor look at your behavior AuthentiKate 82.6.88.43 (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this WP:LOGGEDOUT? Bon courage (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I stumbled across this page and was surprised to see this research hypothesis presented without more qualification. I briefly considered a bold edit to add some caveats like “unofficial term” or “not a recognized disease stage”, etc, but thought to check here first. I’ll take a little more look at history and previous discussion first. Dw31415 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It does say in the lede it's a proposed linkage, and "controversial, and as of 2021 ... not a widely or generally recognized diagnosis" - so it's not being sold that hard ... Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The lead is mostly my writing, and it's a far cry better than it was when I found the article (it used to say something to the effect that T3D and Alzheimer's are the same thing). But I would be fine with qualifying the lead a bit more. I may have gone a little too far in trying to sound even-handed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear @WeirdNAnnoyed (that was fun to write, I like your username), thank you for tempering the previous text. I’ll dig in a little more.

Here’s an insightful paragraph in the first reference:

Substantial epidemiological evidence suggests T2DM are strongly associated with cognitive impairment due to failure in the action of glucose absorption in the neurons for energy production. The association between T2DM and AD is complex both are interlinked with insulin resistance, insulin growth factor (IGF) signalling, inflammatory response, oxidative stress, glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β) signalling mechanism, amyloid beta (Aβ) formation from amyloid precursor protein (APP), neurofibrillary tangle formation, Acetylcholine esterase activity regulation. Because of shared mechanisms among Type-1-Diabetes (T1DM), T2DM and AD; researchers termed “Type-3-Diabetes”. The purpose of the review article is to discuss the shared cellular and molecular connections between diabetes and AD for terming Type-3-Diabetes.

Dw31415 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• There was some relevant discussion at WT:MED a few years ago. Bon courage (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. That was helpful. After reviewing previous discussions, I’m having a little bit of a hard time identifying the advocates of this receiving the current treatment that it does. I’m considering even proposing a move. In my opinion “Type 3 Diabetes” is just not due the same weight as any established disease, like “Type 2 Diabetes”. Off the top of my head it seems like a move to: “Type 3 Diabetes Hypothesis” or “AD - Diabetes Relationship” or similar. Again, I’d like to be sensitive to stumbling across this page and criticizing something that’s established consensus. Is there some support for a move (at least to the extent of proposing it? Dw31415 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Sounds like a good idea to me. Bon courage (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  See the merge discussion above. Right now I would oppose a move because even though T3D doesn't have medical recognition, it is a popular fad "theory" in the health influencer world. A year or so ago I couldn't log into Youtube without seeing at least one robo ad trying to sell me something to treat type 3 diabetes. We can therefore expect a fair amount of traffic from nonexperts trying to fact-check. I would put T3D in the same category as chronic Lyme disease or male menopause, disorders that aren't recognized by experts but have enough online traction to be notable as near-pseudoscience. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Looking at the few secondary sources, the lead (below) from Medical News Today seems to give good context. I note that most of the sources use quotes around T3D. @Bon courage, @WeirdNAnnoyed, thanks for the responses. I’ll give it some more thought.

  Some people use the term “type 3 diabetes” to describe Alzheimer’s disease. However, official health organizations do not accept this term, and most doctors do not use it for diagnostic purposes.

  Dw31415 (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I find no mention of “type 3 diabetes” in NYT. Here’s an article there.

  Type 2 diabetes is a chronic, progressive illness that can have devastating complications, including hearing loss, blindness, heart disease, stroke, kidney failure and vascular damage so severe as to require limb amputation. Now a new study underscores the toll that diabetes may take on the brain. It found that Type 2 diabetes is linked to an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia later in life, and the younger the age at which diabetes is diagnosed, the greater the risk.

  Dw31415 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe a lead:

  • Some researchers conclude that Alzheimer's disease is a form of brain diabetes and would be better defined as Type 3 Diabetes.
  • The term Type 3 Diabetes is proposed by some researchers as a more descriptive name for Alzheimer's disease.

  Dw31415 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  This introduces a WP:ISATERMFOR problem, which suggests the article should be merged/deleted (if this cannot be fixed). Add: So in fact I've tried a bold redirect; see what you think. Bon courage (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing out the “is a term for” problem. Is the redirect essentially a page delete here? I’d probably favor that but would proceed more gradually. I’ll stop short of asking you to revert because it would be helpful to have an advocate for the page to do that. (cc: @WeirdNAnnoyed) Dw31415 (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  For others, here’s a permalink to my edit Dw31415 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  Just a WP:BLAR. Think I've been convinced this is not really "accepted knowledge" about anything, and possibly WP:FRINGE. A sentence or two in the AD article would suffice I think. Bon courage (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that “Type 3 diabetes” only deserves minor treatment on the AD page. I can help notify other editors later if that’s needed. Dw31415 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  As I've said above, I think the article should be kept because "type 3 diabetes" has traction in alt-med communities and has some semi-credible proponents, even though it's probably bogus. See the seed oil misinformation article, for example...the article is about an idea that is clearly nonsense, but has a high-enough profile that some readers might come here and be open to fact-checking. That's the function this article could serve (maybe we should rewrite it thoroughly to make clear that it's a hypothesis with little recognition). But if I'm the only one who feels this way, I'm willing to go along with a BLAR, perhaps with a few-line mention in the main AD page. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)