Importance of Recalibrating Models for Type 2 Diabetes Onset Prediction: Application of the Diabetes Population Risk Tool on the Health and Retirement Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A timely prediction of type 2 diabetes (T2D) onset is important for early intervention to prevent, or at least postpone, its incidence. Several models to predict T2D onset according to individual risk factors were proposed. However, their practical applicability is limited by the fact that they often perform suboptimally when applied to a different population. A solution to overcome this limitation is model recalibration, which consists in updating the model parameters. The aim of this work is to demonstrate the benefits of T2D predictive model recalibration. For the purpose, we considered as case study the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT), originally tuned for the Canadian population, and we applied it to data collected in older Americans in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). A subset of 30,274 subjects was extracted from HRS and divided into a training (N=24,219) and a test set (N=6,055) stratifying for sex and diabetes incidence. The DPoRT was recalibrated by re-estimating all model coefficients on the training set, and then assessed on the test set by comparing the performance of recalibrated vs original model. Model discriminatory ability and calibration were assessed by the concordance index (C-index) and the expected to observed event probability ratio (E/O), respectively. Results show that the recalibrated DPoRT presents similar discriminatory ability to the original model, with C-index equal to 0.68 vs. 0.67 in men, 0.73 vs. 0.73 in women, and better calibration than the original model, with E/O ratio equal to 0.75 vs. 4.57 in men, 0.81 vs. 2.53 in women. Results confirm that recalibration is a key step to be performed before the application of predictive models to different populations in order to guarantee an accurate prediction of diabetes incidence.
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 | 0.026 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".