{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02627939142461964, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020055325034578148, 'mean_word_length': 5.210300429184549, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Major increase in Type 1 diabetes: no support for the Accelerator Hypothesis

© 2008 The Authors. 376 Journal compilation © 2008 Diabetes UK. Diabetic Medicine , 25 , 375–380 in their mothers. Conscientiousness in the children and Agreeableness in the mothers predicted 18% of the variability in mean HbA 1c . However, the authors acknowledged that they had not assessed cognitive function or behavioural factors, which could have had an influence on the outcome of this study. In a previous study [2] we assessed the influence of child and parental mental ability on glycaemic control, and found that maternal intelligence appears to exert a significant effect, accounting for 7.6% of the variability in HbA 1c . Did the authors consider maternal intelligence as potentially having additional, significant variance on the outcome of their study? Achievement of good glycaemic control requires consistently informed decision making by both the child and parent, and it would seem intuitive that intelligence, in addition to personality factors, could affect long-term glycaemic control. It is widely acknowledged that social class, family structure and chronic life stress may all influence glycaemic control [3–5]. It is difficult, therefore, to justify the claim that personality alone is principally responsible for the variability observed, when many other co-existing factors that are difficult to study in isolation have not been addressed.