ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2026
Improving Short- and Long-Term Type 2 Diabetes Risk Prediction for Middle-Aged British Adults.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improving Short- and Long-Term Type 2 Diabetes Risk Prediction for Middle-Aged British Adults.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsDiabetes prediction tools are valuable for prevention and resource planning. Few tools exist to predict long-term diabetes risk for British adults. We aim to develop and validate a diabetes prediction tool for short- and long-term risk. MATERIALS AND
methodsPrediction model development (Training, n = 4502) and internal validation (Test, n = 1929) used Whitehall II data (WHII); external validation used English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) data, with incident diabetes as outcome. Predictors were selected using LASSO-Cox, random survival forests (RSF) and best subset selection. Three candidate Cox models were built from these predictor sets and compared. Performance was assessed with C-indices, calibration and decision curve analysis (DCA). A continuous risk score and quartile-based risk groups were derived; a nomogram was created.
resultsAcross WHII Test (235 events) and ELSA (255 events), three models showed broadly similar discrimination, calibration and DCA patterns. LASSO- and RSF-selected models performed comparably and slightly better than best subset. LASSO and RSF both selected ethnicity, body mass index, waist-to-height ratio, height, triglyceride-glucose index, fasting glucose, family history of diabetes and socioeconomic status; LASSO additionally selected smoking, whereas RSF also included age, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In ELSA, risk-score C-indices (95% CIs) were 0.800 (0.773-0.827) for the LASSO-selected model and 0.801 (0.774-0.827) for the RSF-selected model; risk-group C-indices were 0.737 (0.715-0.759) and 0.727 (0.707-0.748), respectively.
conclusionsWe developed and externally validated a tool to estimate 5-, 10- and 15-year diabetes risk in British middle-aged adults, which may support primary care decision-making.
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.