Risk Prediction Scores for Type 2 Diabetes Microvascular and Cardiovascular Complications Derived and Validated With Real-world Data From 2 Provinces: The DIabeteS COmplications (DISCO) Risk Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Existing tools to predict the risk of complications among people with type 2 diabetes poorly discriminate high- from low-risk patients. Our aim in this study was to develop risk prediction scores for major type 2 diabetes complications using real-world clinical care data, and to externally validate these risk scores in a different jurisdiction. METHODS: Using health-care administrative data and electronic medical records data, risk scores were derived using data from 25,088 people with type 2 diabetes from the Canadian province of Ontario, followed between 2002 and 2017. Scores were developed for major clinically important microvascular events (treatment for retinopathy, foot ulcer, incident end-stage renal disease), cardiovascular disease events (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, amputation), and mortality (cardiovascular, noncardiovascular, all-cause). They were then externally validated using the independent data of 11,416 people with type 2 diabetes from the province of Manitoba. RESULTS: The 10 derived risk scores had moderate to excellent discrimination in the independent validation cohort, ranging from 0.705 to 0.977. Their calibration to predict 5-year risk was excellent across most levels of predicted risk, albeit with some displaying underestimation at the highest levels of predicted risk. CONCLUSIONS: The DIabeteS COmplications (DISCO) risk scores for major type 2 diabetes complications were derived and externally validated using contemporary real-world clinical data. As a result, they may be more accurate than other risk prediction scores derived using randomized trial data. The use of more accurate risk scores in clinical practice will help improve personalization of clinical care for patients with type 2 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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".