ArticlePloS one2015
Evaluation of Major Online Diabetes Risk Calculators and Computerized Predictive Models.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening Tools for Early Identification of Adults at High Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in prediabetes care: applications in screening, risk prediction, and lifestyle intervention.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Incidence and predictors of type 2 diabetes mellitus in a population-based cohort study in Abu Dhabi.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based models for the prediction of breast cancer recurrence risk.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Machine learning in precision diabetes care and cardiovascular risk prediction.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2023Review
- The Impact of 51 Risk Factors on Life Expectancy in Canada: Findings from a New Risk Prediction Model Based on Data from the Global Burden of Disease Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- A Review of National Level Guidelines for Risk Management of Cardiovascular and Diabetic Disease.Cureus · 2022Review
- The Association Between Health Information Seeking on the Internet and Physician Visits (The Seventh Tromsø Study - Part 4): Population-Based Questionnaire Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- The impact of hip and knee osteoarthritis on the subsequent risk of incident diabetes: a population-based cohort study.Diabetologia · 2018Article
- Co-expression analysis among microRNAs, long non-coding RNAs, and messenger RNAs to understand the pathogenesis and progression of diabetic kidney disease at the genetic level.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Classical paper-and-pencil based risk assessment questionnaires are often accompanied by the online versions of the questionnaire to reach a wider population. This study focuses on the loss, especially in risk estimation performance, that can be inflicted by direct transformation from the paper to online versions of risk estimation calculators by ignoring the possibilities of more complex and accurate calculations that can be performed using the online calculators. We empirically compare the risk estimation performance between four major diabetes risk calculators and two, more advanced, predictive models. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1999-2012 was used to evaluate the performance of detecting diabetes and pre-diabetes. American Diabetes Association risk test achieved the best predictive performance in category of classical paper-and-pencil based tests with an Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) of 0.699 for undiagnosed diabetes (0.662 for pre-diabetes) and 47% (47% for pre-diabetes) persons selected for screening. Our results demonstrate a significant difference in performance with additional benefits for a lower number of persons selected for screening when statistical methods are used. The best AUC overall was obtained in diabetes risk prediction using logistic regression with AUC of 0.775 (0.734) and an average 34% (48%) persons selected for screening. However, generalized boosted regression models might be a better option from the economical point of view as the number of selected persons for screening of 30% (47%) lies significantly lower for diabetes risk assessment in comparison to logistic regression (p < 0.001), with a significantly higher AUC (p < 0.001) of 0.774 (0.740) for the pre-diabetes group. Our results demonstrate a serious lack of predictive performance in four major online diabetes risk calculators. Therefore, one should take great care and consider optimizing the online versions of questionnaires that were primarily developed as classical paper questionnaires.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.