A population-based risk algorithm for the development of diabetes: development and validation of the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: National estimates of the upcoming diabetes epidemic are needed to understand the distribution of diabetes risk in the population and to inform health policy. OBJECTIVE: To create and validate a population-based risk prediction tool for incident diabetes using commonly collected national survey data. METHODS: With the use of a cohort design that links baseline risk factors to a validated population-based diabetes registry, a model (Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT)) was developed to predict 9-year risk for diabetes. The probability of developing diabetes was modelled using sex-specific Weibull survival functions for people > 20 years of age without diabetes (N=19,861). The model was validated in two external cohorts in Ontario (N=26,465) and Manitoba (N=9899). Predictive accuracy and model performance were assessed by comparing observed diabetes rates with predicted estimates. Discrimination and calibration were measured using a C statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow χ² statistic (χ²(H-L)). RESULTS: Predictive factors included were body mass index, age, ethnicity, hypertension, immigrant status, smoking, education status and heart disease. DPoRT showed good discrimination (C=0.77-0.80) and calibration (χ²(H-L) < 20) in both external validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This algorithm can be used to estimate diabetes incidence and quantify the effect of interventions using routinely collected survey data.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".