ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2022
German Diabetes Risk Score for the Determination of the Individual Type 2 Diabetes Risk—10-Year Prediction and External Validations.
Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Serum Metabolomic Profiling of Incident Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Rotterdam Study.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- Risk of cardiovascular disease in Germany: results from GEDA 2022.Journal of health monitoring · 2025Article
- Article
- B7-1 and PlGF-1 are two possible new biomarkers to identify fracture-associated trauma patients at higher risk of developing complications: a cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Assessing mortality risk in Type 2 Diabetes patients with prolonged ASCVD risk factors: the inclusive Poh-Ai predictive scoring system with CAC Score integration.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe German Diabetes Risk Score (GDRS) currently enables prediction of the individual risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) within five years. The aim of this study is to extend the prediction period of the GDRS, including its non-clinical version and its HbA1c extension, to 10 years, and to perform external validation.
methodsIn data from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Potsdam study (n = 25 393), Cox proportional hazards regression was used to reweight the points that were used to calculate the five-year risk. Two population-based prospective cohorts (EPIC-Heidelberg n = 23 624, GNHIES98 cohort n = 3717) were used for external validation. Discrimination was represented by C-indices, and calibration by calibration plots and the expected-to-observed (E/O) ratio.
resultsPrediction performance in EPIC-Potsdam was very good (C-index for the non-clinical model: 0.834) and was confirmed in EPIC-Heidelberg (0.843) and in the GNHIES98 cohort (0.851). Among persons in the GNHIES98 cohort with a greater than 10% predicted probability of disease, 14.9% developed T2D within 10 years (positive predictive value). The models were very well calibrated in EPIC-Potsdam (E/O ratio for the non-clinical model: 1.08), slightly overestimated the risk in EPIC-Heidelberg (1.34), and predicted T2D very well in the GNHIES98 cohort after recalibration (1.06).
conclusionThe extended GDRS prediction period of 10 years, with a non-clinical version and an HbA1c extension that will soon be available in both German and English, enables the even longer-range, evidence-based identification of high-risk individuals with many different applications, including medical screening.
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.