TY - JOUR KW - Female KW - Humans KW - Male KW - Middle Aged KW - Cohort Studies KW - Age Factors KW - Body Mass Index KW - Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/ epidemiology KW - European Continental Ancestry Group KW - Models, Biological KW - Risk Assessment/methods KW - Sex Factors KW - Waist Circumference AU - van der Schouw Y. AU - Kengne A. AU - Franks P. AU - Peelen L. AU - Moons K. AU - Li K. AU - Grobbee D. AU - Beulens J. AU - Schulze M. AU - Spijkerman A. AU - Griffin S. AU - Palla L. AU - Tormo M. AU - Arriola L. AU - Barengo N. AU - Barricarte A. AU - Boeing H. AU - Bonet C. AU - Clavel-Chapelon F. AU - Dartois L. AU - Fagherazzi G. AU - Huerta J. AU - Kaaks R. AU - Key T. AU - Khaw K. AU - Muhlenbruch K. AU - Nilsson P. AU - Overvad K. AU - Overvad T. AU - Palli D. AU - Panico S. AU - Quiros J. AU - Rolandsson O. AU - Roswall N. AU - Sacerdote C. AU - Sanchez M. AU - Slimani N. AU - Tagliabue G. AU - Tjonneland A. AU - Tumino R. AU - A. van der Dl AU - Forouhi N. AU - Sharp S. AU - Langenberg C. AU - Riboli E. AU - Wareham N. AB -
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.
AD - University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands; University of Cape Town and South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa; The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia.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.
PY - 2014 SN - 2213-8595 (Electronic) SP - 19 EP - 29 T2 - The lancet. Diabetes & Endocrinology TI - Non-invasive risk scores for prediction of type 2 diabetes (EPIC-InterAct): a validation of existing models VL - 2 ER -