ArticleResearch square2025
A type 1 diabetes prediction model has utility across multiple screening settings with recalibration.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Accurate type 1 diabetes prediction is important to facilitate screening for pre-clinical type 1 diabetes to enable potential early disease-modifying interventions and to reduce the risk of severe presentation with diabetic ketoacidosis. We aimed to assess the generalisability of a prediction model developed in children followed from birth. Additionally, we sought to create an application for easy calculation and visualization of individualized risk prediction. Methods: We developed and refined a stratified prediction model combining a genetic risk score, age, islet autoantibodies, and family history using data from children followed since birth by The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study. We tested the validity of the model through external validation in the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study, which conducts cross-sectional screening in relatives of people with type 1 diabetes. We recalibrated the model by adjusting for baseline risk and selection criteria in TrialNet using logistic recalibration to improve calibration across all ages. Results: The study included 7,798 TEDDY and 4,068 TrialNet participants, with 305 (4%) and 1,373 (34%) developing type 1 diabetes, respectively. The combined model showed similar discriminative ability in autoantibody-positive individuals across TEDDY and TrialNet (p=0.14), but inferior calibration in TrialNet (Brier score 0.40 [0.38,0.43]). Adjustment for baseline risk and selection criteria in TrialNet using logistic recalibration improved calibration across all ages (Brier score 0.16 [0.14,0.17]; p<0.001). A web calculator was developed to visualise individual risk estimates (https://t1dpredictor.diabetesgenes.org). Conclusions: A stratified model of type 1 diabetes genetic risk score, family history, age, and autoantibody status accurately predicts type 1 diabetes risk, but may need recalibration according to screening stategy.
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.