ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2021
Development of a clinical risk score for incident diabetes: A 10-year prospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diabetes Management in Korea: Full Version Recommendation of the Korean Diabetes Association.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2024Guideline
- Causal analysis of traditional and environmental risk factors for long-term development of type 2 diabetes using a conditional survival Bayesian network: evidence from the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Performance of diabetes risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Endocrine connections · 2025Article
- Screening for Prediabetes and Diabetes in Korean Nonpregnant Adults: A Position Statement of the Korean Diabetes Association, 2022.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
AIMS/
introductionWe developed a self-assessable Korean Diabetes Risk score using the data of the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 8,740 participants without diabetes at baseline were followed up biannually over a period of 10 years. We included variables that were significantly different between participants who developed diabetes mellitus and those who did not in the development cohort at baseline. We assigned a maximum score of 100 to the selected variable in each gender group. Next, the 10-year probability of incident diabetes was calculated and validated in the validation cohort. Finally, we compared the predictive power of Korean Diabetes Risk score with models including fasting plasma glucose or glycated hemoglobin and other cohort models of Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities and Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
resultsDuring a median follow-up period of 9.7 years, 22.7% of the participants progressed to diabetes. The Korean Diabetes Risk score included age, living location (urban or rural area), waist circumference, hypertension, family history of diabetes and smoking history. The developed risk score yielded acceptable discrimination for incident diabetes (area under the curve 0.657) and the predictive power was improved when the model included fasting plasma glucose (area under the curve 0.690) or glycated hemoglobin (area under the curve 0.746). In addition, our model predicted incident diabetes more accurately than previous Western or Korean models.
conclusionsThis newly developed self-assessable diabetes risk score is easily applicable to predict the future risk of diabetes even without the necessity for laboratory tests. This score is useful for the Korean diabetes prevention program, because high-risk individuals can be easily screened.
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.