ArticleJournal of the Endocrine Society2026
Development and validation of a model using routine clinical features to improve diabetes diagnosis.
Article in Journal of the Endocrine Society, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Context: Hemoglobin A1c (A1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) miss diabetes diagnosis in many individuals, but the alternative, oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT), is difficult to obtain. Objective: This work aimed to develop and validate a model to identify diabetes missed by A1c and FPG but detected by OGTT and associate its outcomes with mortality. Methods: We trained machine-learning models using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, applied them to corresponding National Center for Health Statistics mortality data, and externally validated the models with Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS) data. We tested models including the A1c, vital signs, complete blood count, and comprehensive metabolic panel with and without the FPG. This retrospective analysis included NHANES study participants from 1999 to 2016 and DPPOS study participants from 1996 to 2020. Main outcome measures included the area under the receiver operating curve, sensitivity, and specificity of models to detect diabetes. Results: The A1c/FPG+ model had better sensitivity for DPPOS individuals with A1c less than 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) and FPG less than 126 mg/dL compared to a logistic regression of A1c and FPG and recalibrated FPG for individuals both on (0.69 vs 0.53 vs 0.57, respectively) and off (0.75 vs 0.65 vs 0.68, respectively) medication. NHANES participants without diabetes but with A1c/FPG+-predicted diabetes had elevated risk of mortality compared to those without A1c/FPG+-predicted diabetes (HR = 1.4; Conclusion: Machine-learning models can improve the detection of individuals who would need OGTT assessment to diagnose diabetes using standard nonfasting laboratory values and vital signs with and without FPG.
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.