IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0171816.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting glycated hemoglobin levels in the non-diabetic general population: Development and validation of the DIRECT-DETECT prediction model - a DIRECT study

Author

Listed:
  • Simone P Rauh
  • Martijn W Heymans
  • Anitra D M Koopman
  • Giel Nijpels
  • Coen D Stehouwer
  • Barbara Thorand
  • Wolfgang Rathmann
  • Christa Meisinger
  • Annette Peters
  • Tonia de las Heras Gala
  • Charlotte Glümer
  • Oluf Pedersen
  • Henna Cederberg
  • Johanna Kuusisto
  • Markku Laakso
  • Ewan R Pearson
  • Paul W Franks
  • Femke Rutters
  • Jacqueline M Dekker

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis: To develop a prediction model that can predict HbA1c levels after six years in the non-diabetic general population, including previously used readily available predictors. Methods: Data from 5,762 initially non-diabetic subjects from three population-based cohorts (Hoorn Study, Inter99, KORA S4/F4) were combined to predict HbA1c levels at six year follow-up. Using backward selection, age, BMI, waist circumference, use of anti-hypertensive medication, current smoking and parental history of diabetes remained in sex-specific linear regression models. To minimize overfitting of coefficients, we performed internal validation using bootstrapping techniques. Explained variance, discrimination and calibration were assessed using R2, classification tables (comparing highest/lowest 50% HbA1c levels) and calibration graphs. The model was externally validated in 2,765 non-diabetic subjects of the population-based cohort METSIM. Results: At baseline, mean HbA1c level was 5.6% (38 mmol/mol). After a mean follow-up of six years, mean HbA1c level was 5.7% (39 mmol/mol). Calibration graphs showed that predicted HbA1c levels were somewhat underestimated in the Inter99 cohort and overestimated in the Hoorn and KORA cohorts, indicating that the model’s intercept should be adjusted for each cohort to improve predictions. Sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 55.7% (53.9, 57.5) and 56.9% (55.1, 58.7) respectively, for women, and 54.6% (52.7, 56.5) and 54.3% (52.4, 56.2) for men. External validation showed similar performance in the METSIM cohort. Conclusions/interpretation: In the non-diabetic population, our DIRECT-DETECT prediction model, including readily available predictors, has a relatively low explained variance and moderate discriminative performance, but can help to distinguish between future highest and lowest HbA1c levels. Absolute HbA1c values are cohort-dependent.

Suggested Citation

  • Simone P Rauh & Martijn W Heymans & Anitra D M Koopman & Giel Nijpels & Coen D Stehouwer & Barbara Thorand & Wolfgang Rathmann & Christa Meisinger & Annette Peters & Tonia de las Heras Gala & Charlott, 2017. "Predicting glycated hemoglobin levels in the non-diabetic general population: Development and validation of the DIRECT-DETECT prediction model - a DIRECT study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0171816
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171816
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171816
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171816&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0171816?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Willi Sauerbrei, 1999. "The Use of Resampling Methods to Simplify Regression Models in Medical Statistics," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 48(3), pages 313-329.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hapfelmeier Alexander & Ulm Kurt & Hothorn Torsten & Riediger Carina, 2014. "Estimation of a Predictor’s Importance by Random Forests When There Is Missing Data: RISK Prediction in Liver Surgery using Laboratory Data," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Sauerbrei, W. & Meier-Hirmer, C. & Benner, A. & Royston, P., 2006. "Multivariable regression model building by using fractional polynomials: Description of SAS, STATA and R programs," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 50(12), pages 3464-3485, August.
    3. Hapfelmeier, A. & Ulm, K., 2013. "A new variable selection approach using Random Forests," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 50-69.
    4. Toshiki Doi & Suguru Yamamoto & Takatoshi Morinaga & Ken-ei Sada & Noriaki Kurita & Yoshihiro Onishi, 2015. "Risk Score to Predict 1-Year Mortality after Haemodialysis Initiation in Patients with Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease under Predialysis Nephrology Care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    5. Patrick Royston & Willi Sauerbrei, 2009. "Bootstrap assessment of the stability of multivariable models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 9(4), pages 547-570, December.
    6. Patrick Royston & Willi Sauerbrei, 2007. "Multivariable modeling with cubic regression splines: A principled approach," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(1), pages 45-70, February.
    7. Dunkler, Daniela & Sauerbrei, Willi & Heinze, Georg, 2016. "Global, Parameterwise and Joint Shrinkage Factor Estimation," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 69(i08).
    8. Harald Binder & Willi Sauerbrei, 2009. "Stability analysis of an additive spline model for respiratory health data by using knot removal," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(5), pages 577-600, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0171816. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.