Development and validation of a cardiovascular risk prediction model in type 1 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to report current rates of CVD in type 1 diabetes and to develop a CVD risk prediction tool for type 1 diabetes. METHODS: A cohort of 27,527 people with type 1 diabetes without prior CVD was derived from the national register in Scotland. Incident CVD events during 199,552 person-years of follow-up were ascertained using hospital admissions and death registers. A Poisson regression model of CVD was developed and then validated in the Swedish National Diabetes Register (n = 33,183). We compared the percentage with a high 10 year CVD risk (i.e., ≥10%) using the model with the percentage eligible for statins using current guidelines by age. RESULTS: The age-standardised rate of CVD per 100,000 person-years was 4070 and 3429 in men and women, respectively, with type 1 diabetes in Scotland, and 4014 and 3956 in men and women in Sweden. The final model was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow test p > 0.05) and included a further 22 terms over a base model of age, sex and diabetes duration (C statistic 0.82; 95% CI 0.81, 0.83). The model increased the base model C statistic from 0.66 to 0.80, from 0.60 to 0.75 and from 0.62 to 0.68 in those aged <40, 40-59 and ≥ 60 years, respectively (all p values <0.005). The model required minimal calibration in Sweden and had a C statistic of 0.85. Under current guidelines, >90% of those aged 20-39 years and 100% of those ≥40 years with type 1 diabetes were eligible for statins, but it was not until age 65 upwards that 100% had a modelled risk of CVD ≥10% in 10 years. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: A prediction tool such as that developed here can provide individualised risk predictions. This 10 year CVD risk prediction tool could facilitate patient discussions regarding appropriate statin prescribing. Apart from 10 year risk, such discussions may also consider longer-term CVD risk, the potential for greater benefits from early vs later statin intervention, the potential impact on quality of life of an early CVD event and evidence on safety, all of which could influence treatment decisions, particularly in younger people with type 1 diabetes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".