Risk of new‐onset diabetes and efficacy of pharmacological weight loss therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To develop a clinical risk model to identify individuals at higher risk of developing new-onset diabetes and who might benefit more from weight loss pharmacotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 21 143 patients without type 2 diabetes at baseline from two TIMI clinical trials of stable cardiovascular patients were divided into a derivation (~2/3) and validation (~1/3) cohort. The primary outcome was new-onset diabetes. Twenty-seven candidate risk variables were considered, and variable selection was performed using multivariable Cox regression. The final model was evaluated for discrimination and calibration, and for its ability to identify patients who experienced a larger benefit from the weight loss medication lorcaserin in terms of risk of new-onset diabetes. RESULTS: During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 2.3 (1.8-2.7) years, new-onset diabetes occurred in 1013 patients (7.7%). The final model included five independent predictors (glycated haemoglobin, fasting glucose, age, body mass index, and triglycerides/high-density lipoprotein). The clinical risk model showed good discrimination (Harrell's C-indices 0.802, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.788-0.817 and 0.807, 95% CI 0.788-0.826) in the derivation and validation cohorts. The calibration plot demonstrated adequate calibration (2.5-year area under the curve was 81.2 [79.1-83.5]). While hazard ratios for new-onset diabetes with a weight-loss therapy were comparable across risk groups (annual risks of <1%, 1%-5%, and >5%), there was a sixfold gradient in absolute risk reduction from lowest to highest risk group (p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: The developed clinical risk model effectively predicts new-onset diabetes, with potential implications for personalized patient care and therapeutic decision making.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".