Development and Validation of HealthImpact: An Incident Diabetes Prediction Model Based on Administrative Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a model of incident type 2 diabetes based solely on administrative data. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Optum Labs Data Warehouse (OLDW), a national commercial administrative dataset. STUDY DESIGN: HealthImpact model was developed and internally validated using nested case-control study design; n = 473,049 in training cohort and n = 303,025 in internal validation cohort. HealthImpact was externally validated in 2,000,000 adults followed prospectively for 3 years. Only adults ≥18 years were included. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Patients with incident diabetes were identified using HEDIS rules. Control subjects were sampled from patients without diabetes. Medical and pharmacy claims data collected over 3 years prior to index date were used to build the model variables. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: HealthImpact, scored 0-100, has 48 variables with c-statistic 0.80815. We identified HealthImpact threshold of 90 as identifying patients at high risk of incident diabetes. HealthImpact had excellent discrimination in external validation cohort (c-statistic 0.8171). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of HealthImpact >90 for new diagnosis of diabetes within 3 years were 32.35, 94.92, 22.25, and 96.90 percent, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: HealthImpact is an efficient and effective method of risk stratification for incident diabetes that is not predicated on patient-provided information or laboratory tests.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".