Dataset Information

Prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify existing prediction models for the risk of development of type 2 diabetes and to externally validate them in a large independent cohort.

Data sources

Systematic search of English, German, and Dutch literature in PubMed until February 2011 to identify prediction models for diabetes.

Design

Performance of the models was assessed in terms of discrimination (C statistic) and calibration (calibration plots and Hosmer-Lemeshow test).The validation study was a prospective cohort study, with a case cohort study in a random subcohort.

Setting

Models were applied to the Dutch cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort study (EPIC-NL).

Participants

38,379 people aged 20-70 with no diabetes at baseline, 2506 of whom made up the random subcohort.

Outcome measure

Incident type 2 diabetes.

Results

The review identified 16 studies containing 25 prediction models. We considered 12 models as basic because they were based on variables that can be assessed non-invasively and 13 models as extended because they additionally included conventional biomarkers such as glucose concentration. During a median follow-up of 10.2 years there were 924 cases in the full EPIC-NL cohort and 79 in the random subcohort. The C statistic for the basic models ranged from 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.75) to 0.84 (0.82 to 0.85) for risk at 7.5 years. For prediction models including biomarkers the C statistic ranged from 0.81 (0.80 to 0.83) to 0.93 (0.92 to 0.94). Most prediction models overestimated the observed risk of diabetes, particularly at higher observed risks. After adjustment for differences in incidence of diabetes, calibration improved considerably.

Conclusions

Most basic prediction models can identify people at high risk of developing diabetes in a time frame of five to 10 years. Models including biomarkers classified cases slightly better than basic ones. Most models overestimated the actual risk of diabetes. Existing prediction models therefore perform well to identify those at high risk, but cannot sufficiently quantify actual risk of future diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Abbasi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3445426 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeople with intermediate hyperglycemia (IH), including impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance, are at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) than those with normoglycemia. We aimed to evaluate the performance of published T2D risk prediction models in Chinese people with IH to inform them about the choice of primary diabetes prevention measures.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted to identify Asian-derived T2D risk prediction models, which were eligible if they were built on a prospective cohort of Asian adults without diabetes at baseline and utilized routinely-available variables to predict future risk of T2D. These Asian-derived and five prespecified non-Asian derived T2D risk prediction models were divided into BASIC (clinical variables only) and EXTENDED (plus laboratory variables) versions, with validation performed on them in three prospective Chinese IH cohorts: ACE (n = 3241), Luzhou (n = 1333), and TCLSIH (n = 1702). Model performance was assessed in terms of discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test).ResultsForty-four Asian and five non-Asian studies comprising 21 BASIC and 46 EXTENDED T2D risk prediction models for validation were identified. The majority were at high (n = 43, 87.8%) or unclear (n = 3, 6.1%) risk of bias, while only three studies (6.1%) were scored at low risk of bias. BASIC models showed poor-to-moderate discrimination with C-statistics 0.52-0.60, 0.50-0.59, and 0.50-0.64 in the ACE, Luzhou, and TCLSIH cohorts respectively. EXTENDED models showed poor-to-acceptable discrimination with C-statistics 0.54-0.73, 0.52-0.67, and 0.59-0.78 respectively. Fifteen BASIC and 40 EXTENDED models showed poor calibration (P < 0.05), overpredicting or underestimating the observed diabetes risk. Most recalibrated models showed improved calibration but modestly-to-severely overestimated diabetes risk in the three cohorts. The NAVIGATOR model showed the best discrimination in the three cohorts but had poor calibration (P < 0.05).ConclusionsIn Chinese people with IH, previously published BASIC models to predict T2D did not exhibit good discrimination or calibration. Several EXTENDED models performed better, but a robust Chinese T2D risk prediction tool in people with IH remains a major unmet need.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify and assess the quality and accuracy of prognostic models for nephropathy and to validate these models in external cohorts of people with type 2 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and external validation.Data sourcesPubMed and Embase.Eligibility criteriaStudies describing the development of a model to predict the risk of nephropathy, applicable to people with type 2 diabetes.MethodsScreening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done in duplicate. Eligible models were externally validated in the Hoorn Diabetes Care System (DCS) cohort (n=11 450) for the same outcomes for which they were developed. Risks of nephropathy were calculated and compared with observed risk over 2, 5, and 10 years of follow-up. Model performance was assessed based on intercept adjusted calibration and discrimination (Harrell's C statistic).Results41 studies included in the systematic review reported 64 models, 46 of which were developed in a population with diabetes and 18 in the general population including diabetes as a predictor. The predicted outcomes included albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease (general population), and end stage renal disease. The reported apparent discrimination of the 46 models varied considerably across the different predicted outcomes, from 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.64) to 0.99 (not available) for the models developed in a diabetes population and from 0.59 (not available) to 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97) for the models developed in the general population. Calibration was reported in 31 of the 41 studies, and the models were generally well calibrated. 21 of the 64 retrieved models were externally validated in the Hoorn DCS cohort for predicting risk of albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, and chronic kidney disease, with considerable variation in performance across prediction horizons and models. For all three outcomes, however, at least two models had C statistics >0.8, indicating excellent discrimination. In a secondary external validation in GoDARTS (Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland), models developed for diabetic kidney disease outperformed those for chronic kidney disease. Models were generally well calibrated across all three prediction horizons.ConclusionsThis study identified multiple prediction models to predict albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease, and end stage renal disease. In the external validation, discrimination and calibration for albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, and chronic kidney disease varied considerably across prediction horizons and models. For each outcome, however, specific models showed good discrimination and calibration across the three prediction horizons, with clinically accessible predictors, making them applicable in a clinical setting.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020192831.

Project description:ObjectiveTo validate all diagnostic prediction models for ruling out pulmonary embolism that are easily applicable in primary care.DesignSystematic review followed by independent external validation study to assess transportability of retrieved models to primary care medicine.Setting300 general practices in the Netherlands.ParticipantsIndividual patient dataset of 598 patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism in primary care.Main outcome measuresDiscriminative ability of all models retrieved by systematic literature search, assessed by calculation and comparison of C statistics. After stratification into groups with high and low probability of pulmonary embolism according to pre-specified model cut-offs combined with qualitative D-dimer test, sensitivity, specificity, efficiency (overall proportion of patients with low probability of pulmonary embolism), and failure rate (proportion of pulmonary embolism cases in group of patients with low probability) were calculated for all models.ResultsTen published prediction models for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism were found. Five of these models could be validated in the primary care dataset: the original Wells, modified Wells, simplified Wells, revised Geneva, and simplified revised Geneva models. Discriminative ability was comparable for all models (range of C statistic 0.75-0.80). Sensitivity ranged from 88% (simplified revised Geneva) to 96% (simplified Wells) and specificity from 48% (revised Geneva) to 53% (simplified revised Geneva). Efficiency of all models was between 43% and 48%. Differences were observed between failure rates, especially between the simplified Wells and the simplified revised Geneva models (failure rates 1.2% (95% confidence interval 0.2% to 3.3%) and 3.1% (1.4% to 5.9%), respectively; absolute difference -1.98% (-3.33% to -0.74%)). Irrespective of the diagnostic prediction model used, three patients were incorrectly classified as having low probability of pulmonary embolism; pulmonary embolism was diagnosed only after referral to secondary care.ConclusionsFive diagnostic pulmonary embolism prediction models that are easily applicable in primary care were validated in this setting. Whereas efficiency was comparable for all rules, the Wells rules gave the best performance in terms of lower failure rates.

Project description:IntroductionExternal validation studies are essential to study the generalizability of prediction models. Recently a permutation test, focusing on discrimination as quantified by the c-statistic, was proposed to judge whether a prediction model is transportable to a new setting. We aimed to evaluate this test and compare it to previously proposed procedures to judge any changes in c-statistic from development to external validation setting.MethodsWe compared the use of the permutation test to the use of benchmark values of the c-statistic following from a previously proposed framework to judge transportability of a prediction model. In a simulation study we developed a prediction model with logistic regression on a development set and validated them in the validation set. We concentrated on two scenarios: 1) the case-mix was more heterogeneous and predictor effects were weaker in the validation set compared to the development set, and 2) the case-mix was less heterogeneous in the validation set and predictor effects were identical in the validation and development set. Furthermore we illustrated the methods in a case study using 15 datasets of patients suffering from traumatic brain injury.ResultsThe permutation test indicated that the validation and development set were homogenous in scenario 1 (in almost all simulated samples) and heterogeneous in scenario 2 (in 17%-39% of simulated samples). Previously proposed benchmark values of the c-statistic and the standard deviation of the linear predictors correctly pointed at the more heterogeneous case-mix in scenario 1 and the less heterogeneous case-mix in scenario 2.ConclusionThe recently proposed permutation test may provide misleading results when externally validating prediction models in the presence of case-mix differences between the development and validation population. To correctly interpret the c-statistic found at external validation it is crucial to disentangle case-mix differences from incorrect regression coefficients.

Project description:Aims/hypothesisThe aims of this study were to identify all published prognostic models predicting retinopathy risk applicable to people with type 2 diabetes, to assess their quality and accuracy, and to validate their predictive accuracy in a head-to-head comparison using an independent type 2 diabetes cohort.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed and Embase in December 2019. Studies that met the following criteria were included: (1) the model was applicable in type 2 diabetes; (2) the outcome was retinopathy; and (3) follow-up was more than 1 year. Screening, data extraction (using the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systemic reviews of prediction modelling studies [CHARMS]) and risk of bias assessment (by prediction model risk of bias assessment tool [PROBAST]) were performed independently by two reviewers. Selected models were externally validated in the large Hoorn Diabetes Care System (DCS) cohort in the Netherlands. Retinopathy risk was calculated using baseline data and compared with retinopathy incidence over 5 years. Calibration after intercept adjustment and discrimination (Harrell's C statistic) were assessed.ResultsTwelve studies were included in the systematic review, reporting on 16 models. Outcomes ranged from referable retinopathy to blindness. Discrimination was reported in seven studies with C statistics ranging from 0.55 (95% CI 0.54, 0.56) to 0.84 (95% CI 0.78, 0.88). Five studies reported on calibration. Eight models could be compared head-to-head in the DCS cohort (N = 10,715). Most of the models underestimated retinopathy risk. Validating the models against different severities of retinopathy, C statistics ranged from 0.51 (95% CI 0.49, 0.53) to 0.89 (95% CI 0.88, 0.91).Conclusions/interpretationSeveral prognostic models can accurately predict retinopathy risk in a population-based type 2 diabetes cohort. Most of the models include easy-to-measure predictors enhancing their applicability. Tailoring retinopathy screening frequency based on accurate risk predictions may increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy care.RegistrationPROSPERO registration ID CRD42018089122.

Project description:BackgroundMany dementia prediction models have been developed, but only few have been externally validated, which hinders clinical uptake and may pose a risk if models are applied to actual patients regardless. Externally validating an existing prediction model is a difficult task, where we mostly rely on the completeness of model reporting in a published article. In this study, we aim to externally validate existing dementia prediction models. To that end, we define model reporting criteria, review published studies, and externally validate three well reported models using routinely collected health data from administrative claims and electronic health records.MethodsWe identified dementia prediction models that were developed between 2011 and 2020 and assessed if they could be externally validated given a set of model criteria. In addition, we externally validated three of these models (Walters' Dementia Risk Score, Mehta's RxDx-Dementia Risk Index, and Nori's ADRD dementia prediction model) on a network of six observational health databases from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands, including the original development databases of the models.ResultsWe reviewed 59 dementia prediction models. All models reported the prediction method, development database, and target and outcome definitions. Less frequently reported by these 59 prediction models were predictor definitions (52 models) including the time window in which a predictor is assessed (21 models), predictor coefficients (20 models), and the time-at-risk (42 models). The validation of the model by Walters (development c-statistic: 0.84) showed moderate transportability (0.67-0.76 c-statistic). The Mehta model (development c-statistic: 0.81) transported well to some of the external databases (0.69-0.79 c-statistic). The Nori model (development AUROC: 0.69) transported well (0.62-0.68 AUROC) but performed modestly overall. Recalibration showed improvements for the Walters and Nori models, while recalibration could not be assessed for the Mehta model due to unreported baseline hazard.ConclusionWe observed that reporting is mostly insufficient to fully externally validate published dementia prediction models, and therefore, it is uncertain how well these models would work in other clinical settings. We emphasize the importance of following established guidelines for reporting clinical prediction models. We recommend that reporting should be more explicit and have external validation in mind if the model is meant to be applied in different settings.

Project description:IntroductionPrediction models may contribute to personalized risk-based management of women at high risk of spontaneous preterm delivery. Although prediction models are published frequently, often with promising results, external validation generally is lacking. We performed a systematic review of prediction models for the risk of spontaneous preterm birth based on routine clinical parameters. Additionally, we externally validated and evaluated the clinical potential of the models.Material and methodsPrediction models based on routinely collected maternal parameters obtainable during first 16 weeks of gestation were eligible for selection. Risk of bias was assessed according to the CHARMS guidelines. We validated the selected models in a Dutch multicenter prospective cohort study comprising 2614 unselected pregnant women. Information on predictors was obtained by a web-based questionnaire. Predictive performance of the models was quantified by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots for the outcomes spontaneous preterm birth <37 weeks and <34 weeks of gestation. Clinical value was evaluated by means of decision curve analysis and calculating classification accuracy for different risk thresholds.ResultsFour studies describing five prediction models fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Risk of bias assessment revealed a moderate to high risk of bias in three studies. The AUC of the models ranged from 0.54 to 0.67 and from 0.56 to 0.70 for the outcomes spontaneous preterm birth <37 weeks and <34 weeks of gestation, respectively. A subanalysis showed that the models discriminated poorly (AUC 0.51-0.56) for nulliparous women. Although we recalibrated the models, two models retained evidence of overfitting. The decision curve analysis showed low clinical benefit for the best performing models.ConclusionsThis review revealed several reporting and methodological shortcomings of published prediction models for spontaneous preterm birth. Our external validation study indicated that none of the models had the ability to predict spontaneous preterm birth adequately in our population. Further improvement of prediction models, using recent knowledge about both model development and potential risk factors, is necessary to provide an added value in personalized risk assessment of spontaneous preterm birth.