ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2025
Genomic risk prediction for type 2 diabetes in Australian individuals aged 70 years and older.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe utility of a polygenic score (PGS) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) has been demonstrated in the general adult population. However, while previous studies have included older adults within broader age ranges, the performance of PGS specifically in older individuals aged ≥70 years remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the predictive utility of a PGS in an older cohort. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe derived a PGS in 12 174 Australian participants aged ≥70 years from the ASPREE trial, with a median follow-up of 4.6 years. T2D was defined by self-report, commencement of glucose-lowering medication, or a fasting plasma glucose of ≥7.0 mmol/L. Multivariable logistic and Cox models examined associations between the PGS and baseline and incident T2D, adjusting for clinical risk factors. Risk prediction was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC), C-index, and net reclassification improvement (NRI).
resultsAt baseline, 1150 (9.4%) participants had prevalent T2D. During follow-up, an additional 590 (4.8%) developed incident T2D. Per standard deviation, the PGS was significantly associated with baseline (odds ratio: 2.39 [95% CI: 2.19-2.61]) and incident (hazard ratio: 1.55 [1.40-1.71]) T2D. The PGS improved prediction over the clinical risk factors, increasing the AUC from 0.70 to 0.79, and C-index from 0.67 to 0.71 (both p < 0.001). Adding the PGS to a clinical risk model resulted in NRI of 0.63 [0.57-0.71] for baseline T2D and 0.42 [0.30-0.51] for incident T2D within 5 years.
conclusionThe PGS significantly enhances T2D risk prediction in older adults, supporting its potential as a clinical tool for risk stratification.
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.