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
. 2025 May 1;48(5):703-710.
doi: 10.2337/dc24-1624.

Derivation and Validation of D-RISK: An Electronic Health Record-Driven Risk Score to Detect Undiagnosed Dysglycemia in Clinical Practice

Affiliations

Derivation and Validation of D-RISK: An Electronic Health Record-Driven Risk Score to Detect Undiagnosed Dysglycemia in Clinical Practice

Michael E Bowen et al. Diabetes Care. .

Abstract

Objective: We derive and validate D-RISK, an electronic health record (EHR)-driven risk score to optimize and facilitate screening for undiagnosed dysglycemia (prediabetes plus diabetes) in clinical practice.

Research design and methods: We used retrospective EHR data (derivation sample) and a prospective diabetes screening study (validation sample) to develop D-RISK. Logistic regression with backward selection was used to predict dysglycemia (HbA1c ≥5.7%) using diabetes risk factors consistently captured in structured EHR data. Model coefficients were converted to a points-based risk score. We report discrimination, sensitivity, and specificity and compare D-RISK to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk test and the ADA and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines.

Results: The derivation cohort included 11,387 patients (mean age 48 years; 65% female; 42% Hispanic; 32% non-Hispanic Black; mean BMI 32; 29% with hypertension). D-RISK included age, race, BMI, hypertension, and random glucose. The area under curve (AUC) for the risk score was 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.76). In the validation screening study (n = 519), the AUC was 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) which was better than the ADA and USPSTF diabetes screening guidelines (AUC = 0.52 and AUC = 0.58, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Discrimination was similar to the ADA risk test (AUC = 0.67) using patient-reported data to supplement EHR data, although D-RISK was more sensitive (75% vs. 61%) at the recommended screening thresholds.

Conclusions: Designed for use in EHR, D-RISK performs better than commonly used screening guidelines and risk scores and may help detect undiagnosed cases of dysglycemia in clinical practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Comment in

References

    1. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 2. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024. Diabetes Care 2023;47(Suppl. 1):S20–S42 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, et al. ; US Preventive Services Task Force . Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2021;326:736–743 - PubMed
    1. Center for Disease Control and Prevention . National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2024. Accessed 30 July 2024. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/php/data-research/index.html
    1. Menke A, Casagrande S, Avilés-Santa ML, Cowie CC.. Factors associated with being unaware of having diabetes. Diabetes Care 2017;40:e55–e56 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Casagrande SS, Menke A, Aviles-Santa L, et al. . Factors associated with undiagnosed diabetes among adults with diabetes: results from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL). Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2018;146:258–266 - PMC - PubMed