Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jan;2(1):19-29.
doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(13)70103-7. Epub 2013 Oct 8.

Non-invasive risk scores for prediction of type 2 diabetes (EPIC-InterAct): a validation of existing models

Affiliations
Free article

Non-invasive risk scores for prediction of type 2 diabetes (EPIC-InterAct): a validation of existing models

Andre Pascal Kengne et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014 Jan.
Free article

Erratum in

  • Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014 Apr;2(4):e11
  • Correction to Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2014; 2: 19-29.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014 Apr;2(4):e11. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70018-X. Epub 2014 Apr 3. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014. PMID: 32961643 No abstract available.

Abstract

Background: The comparative performance of existing models for prediction of type 2 diabetes across populations has not been investigated. We validated existing non-laboratory-based models and assessed variability in predictive performance in European populations.

Methods: We selected non-invasive prediction models for incident diabetes developed in populations of European ancestry and validated them using data from the EPIC-InterAct case-cohort sample (27,779 individuals from eight European countries, of whom 12,403 had incident diabetes). We assessed model discrimination and calibration for the first 10 years of follow-up. The models were first adjusted to the country-specific diabetes incidence. We did the main analyses for each country and for subgroups defined by sex, age (<60 years vs ≥60 years), BMI (<25 kg/m(2)vs ≥25 kg/m(2)), and waist circumference (men <102 cm vs ≥102 cm; women <88 cm vs ≥88 cm).

Findings: We validated 12 prediction models. Discrimination was acceptable to good: C statistics ranged from 0·76 (95% CI 0·72-0·80) to 0·81 (0·77-0·84) overall, from 0·73 (0·70-0·76) to 0·79 (0·74-0·83) in men, and from 0·78 (0·74-0·82) to 0·81 (0·80-0·82) in women. We noted significant heterogeneity in discrimination (pheterogeneity<0·0001) in all but one model. Calibration was good for most models, and consistent across countries (pheterogeneity>0·05) except for three models. However, two models overestimated risk, DPoRT by 34% (95% CI 29-39%) and Cambridge by 40% (28-52%). Discrimination was always better in individuals younger than 60 years or with a low waist circumference than in those aged at least 60 years or with a large waist circumference. Patterns were inconsistent for BMI. All models overestimated risks for individuals with a BMI of <25 kg/m(2). Calibration patterns were inconsistent for age and waist-circumference subgroups.

Interpretation: Existing diabetes prediction models can be used to identify individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes in the general population. However, the performance of each model varies with country, age, sex, and adiposity.

Funding: The European Union.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources