ArticlePreventive medicine reports2021
Validation of a lifestyle-based risk score for type 2 diabetes mellitus in Australian adults.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Evaluating physical activities in clinical diabetes: lifestyle scores hypothesis.Primary health care research & development · 2024Article
- Performance of different machine learning algorithms in identifying undiagnosed diabetes based on nonlaboratory parameters and the influence of muscle strength: A cross-sectional study.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to assess the performance of a lifestyle-based prognostic risk model (Diabetes Lifestyle Score) for the prediction of 5-year risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The model comprises nine self-reported predictors (sex, age, antihypertensive drugs, body mass index, family history of diabetes, physical activity, fruits, vegetables, and wholemeal/brown bread). We conducted an external validation and update of the model in an Australian cohort including 97,615 residents of New South Wales aged 45 years and older who were free of type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus at baseline. Of all participants, 4,741 developed type 2 diabetes mellitus over 5 years. We conducted the statistical analyses in RStudio using the programming language R. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the original model was 0.726 (95% confidence interval: 0.719, 0.733). After adjusting the calibration intercept and slope, the original model performed reasonably well in the external cohort. The best performance was measured by using the numerical predictors as continuous variables and refitting all coefficients (AUC: 0.741, 95% confidence interval: 0.734, 0.748). The results of the original model after calibration were comparable to those received from the AUSDRISK score which is routinely used in Australian clinical practice. Hence, the lifestyle-based model might be a reasonable alternative for laypersons since the required information is most likely known by these. Further, the risk score may communicate the message about the importance of a healthy diet to reduce the risk of diabetes.
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.