Development and validation of a risk assessment model for prediabetes in China national diabetes survey

BACKGROUND: Prediabetes risk assessment models derived from large sample sizes are scarce. AIM: To establish a robust assessment model for prediabetes and to validate the model in different populations. METHODS: The China National Diabetes and Metabolic Disorders Study (CNDMDS) collected information from 47325 participants aged at least 20 years across China from 2007 to 2008. The Thyroid Disorders, Iodine Status and Diabetes Epidemiological Survey (TIDE) study collected data from 66108 participants aged at least 18 years across China from 2015 to 2017. A logistic model with stepwise selection was performed to identify significant risk factors for prediabetes and was internally validated by bootstrapping in the CNDMDS. External validations were performed in diverse populations, including populations of Hispanic (Mexican American, other Hispanic) and non-Hispanic (White, Black and Asian) participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States and 66108 participants in the TIDE study in China. C statistics and calibration plots were adopted to evaluate the model’s discrimination and calibration performance. RESULTS: A set of easily measured indicators (age, education, family history of diabetes, waist circumference, body mass index, and systolic blood pressure) were selected as significant risk factors. A risk assessment model was established for prediabetes with a C statistic of 0.6998 (95%CI: 0.6933 to 0.7063) and a calibration slope of 1.0002. When externally validated in the NHANES and TIDE studies, the model showed increased C statistics in Mexican American, other Hispanic, Non-Hispanic Black, Asian and Chinese populations but a slightly decreased C statistic in non-Hispanic White individuals. Applying the risk assessment model to the TIDE population, we obtained a C statistic of 0.7308 (95%CI: 0.7260 to 0.7357) and a calibration slope of 1.1137. A risk score was derived to assess prediabetes. Individuals with scores ≥ 7 points were at high risk of prediabetes, with a sensitivity of 60.19% and specificity of 67.59%. CONCLUSION: An easy-to-use assessment model for prediabetes was established and was internally and externally validated in different populations. The model had a satisfactory performance and could screen individuals with a high risk of prediabetes.