ArticlePLoS medicine2021
Development and validation of the CHIME simulation model to assess lifetime health outcomes of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in Chinese populations: A modeling study.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-utility of once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulins for type 2 diabetes in China.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Predicting 1-Year Renal Outcomes in Patients with Diabetic Kidney Disease in CKD Stages 3 to 4: A Multimodal Machine Learning Approach Fusing Clinical Composites and Pathology Images.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- External validation and application of a machine learning-based model for diabetes progression in prediabetes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of iGlarLixi vs. IDegAsp in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a BRAVO model-based evaluation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The healthcare and economic burden associated with inadequate risk factor control for type 2 diabetes in Hong Kong: A population-based modelling study.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Article
- Prognostic models for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes: living systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.BMJ medicine · 2025Article
- Approaches to predict future type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease: A scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
- The Impact of Unrelated Future Medical Costs on Economic Evaluation Outcomes for Different Models of Diabetes.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Article
- External validation and calibration of risk equations for prediction of diabetic kidney diseases among patients with type 2 diabetes in Taiwan.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram of all-cause mortality in adult Americans with diabetes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Adaptation of risk prediction equations for cardiovascular outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes in real-world settings: a cross-institutional study using common data model approach.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2024Article
- Prediction of complications in health economic models of type 2 diabetes: a review of methods used.Acta diabetologica · 2023Review
- Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of six GLP-1RAs for treatment of Chinese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients that inadequately controlled on metformin: a micro-simulation model.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Relationship between baseline and changed serum uric acid and the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a national cohort study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Adherence to Annual Fundus Exams among Chinese Population with Diagnosed Diabetes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Modeling Chronic Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Literature Review of Models, Data Sources, and Derivation Cohorts.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2022Review
- Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions among Chinese Adults with Prediabetes: A Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis and CHIME-Modeled Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExisting predictive outcomes models for type 2 diabetes developed and validated in historical European populations may not be applicable for East Asian populations due to differences in the epidemiology and complications. Despite the continuum of risk across the spectrum of risk factor values, existing models are typically limited to diabetes alone and ignore the progression from prediabetes to diabetes. The objective of this study is to develop and externally validate a patient-level simulation model for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in the East Asian population for predicting lifetime health outcomes. METHODS AND
findingsWe developed a health outcomes model from a population-based cohort of individuals with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes: Hong Kong Clinical Management System (CMS, 97,628 participants) from 2006 to 2017. The Chinese Hong Kong Integrated Modeling and Evaluation (CHIME) simulation model comprises of 13 risk equations to predict mortality, micro- and macrovascular complications, and development of diabetes. Risk equations were derived using parametric proportional hazard models. External validation of the CHIME model was assessed in the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS, 4,567 participants) from 2011 to 2018 for mortality, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, renal failure, cataract, and development of diabetes; and against 80 observed endpoints from 9 published trials using 100,000 simulated individuals per trial. The CHIME model was compared to United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS-OM2) and Risk Equations for Complications Of type 2 Diabetes (RECODe) by assessing model discrimination (C-statistics), calibration slope/intercept, root mean square percentage error (RMSPE), and R2. CHIME risk equations had C-statistics for discrimination from 0.636 to 0.813 internally and 0.702 to 0.770 externally for diabetes participants. Calibration slopes between deciles of expected and observed risk in CMS ranged from 0.680 to 1.333 for mortality, myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease, retinopathy, neuropathy, ulcer of the skin, cataract, renal failure, and heart failure; 0.591 for peripheral vascular disease; 1.599 for cerebrovascular disease; and 2.247 for amputation; and in CHARLS outcomes from 0.709 to 1.035. CHIME had better discrimination and calibration than UKPDS-OM2 in CMS (C-statistics 0.548 to 0.772, slopes 0.130 to 3.846) and CHARLS (C-statistics 0.514 to 0.750, slopes -0.589 to 11.411); and small improvements in discrimination and better calibration than RECODe in CMS (C-statistics 0.615 to 0.793, slopes 0.138 to 1.514). Predictive error was smaller for CHIME in CMS (RSMPE 3.53% versus 10.82% for UKPDS-OM2 and 11.16% for RECODe) and CHARLS (RSMPE 4.49% versus 14.80% for UKPDS-OM2). Calibration performance of CHIME was generally better for trials with Asian participants (RMSPE 0.48% to 3.66%) than for non-Asian trials (RMPSE 0.81% to 8.50%). Main limitations include the limited number of outcomes recorded in the CHARLS cohort, and the generalizability of simulated cohorts derived from trial participants.
conclusionsOur study shows that the CHIME model is a new validated tool for predicting progression of diabetes and its outcomes, particularly among Chinese and East Asian populations that has been lacking thus far. The CHIME model can be used by health service planners and policy makers to develop population-level strategies, for example, setting HbA1c and lipid targets, to optimize health outcomes.
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.