Prediction of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus With Alternative Definitions of the Metabolic Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In addition to predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality, the metabolic syndrome is strongly associated with the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), itself an important risk factor for CVD. Our objective was to compare the ability of various metabolic syndrome criteria (including those recently proposed by the International Diabetes Federation), markers of insulin resistance (IR) and inflammation, and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in the prediction of DM and to determine whether various proposed modifications to the National Cholesterol Education program (NCEP) metabolic syndrome definition improved predictive ability. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 822 subjects in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study aged 40 to 69 years who were nondiabetic at baseline. After 5.2 years, 148 individuals had developed DM. IGT, metabolic syndrome definitions, and IR markers all significantly predicted DM, with odds ratios ranging from 3.4 to 5.4 (all P<0.001), although there were no significant differences in the areas under the receiver operator characteristic (AROC) curves between the definitions. Modifying or requiring obesity, glucose, or IR components in NCEP-defined metabolic syndrome did not significantly alter the predictive ability of the definition under AROC curve criteria (all P>0.05). Similarly, although IR and inflammation variables were significantly associated with incident DM when included in multivariate models with NCEP-defined metabolic syndrome (all P<0.01), expanding the definition by adding these variables as components did not significantly alter the predictive ability of the definition under AROC curve criteria (all P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The International Diabetes Federation and NCEP metabolic syndrome definitions predicted DM at least as well as the World Health Organization definition, despite not requiring the use of oral glucose tolerance testing or measures of IR or microalbuminuria. Modifications or additions to the NCEP metabolic syndrome definition had limited impact on the prediction of DM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".