AUTHOR=Wu Yang , Hu Haofei , Cai Jinlin , Chen Runtian , Zuo Xin , Cheng Heng , Yan Dewen 

TITLE=Machine Learning for Predicting the 3-Year Risk of Incident Diabetes in Chinese Adults

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Public Health

VOLUME=9

YEAR=2021

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.626331

DOI=10.3389/fpubh.2021.626331

ISSN=2296-2565

ABSTRACT=<p><bold>Purpose:</bold> We aimed to establish and validate a risk assessment system that combines demographic and clinical variables to predict the 3-year risk of incident diabetes in Chinese adults.</p><p><bold>Methods:</bold> A 3-year cohort study was performed on 15,928 Chinese adults without diabetes at baseline. All participants were randomly divided into a training set (<italic>n</italic> = 7,940) and a validation set (<italic>n</italic> = 7,988). XGBoost method is an effective machine learning technique used to select the most important variables from candidate variables. And we further established a stepwise model based on the predictors chosen by the XGBoost model. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), decision curve and calibration analysis were used to assess discrimination, clinical use and calibration of the model, respectively. The external validation was performed on a cohort of 11,113 Japanese participants.</p><p><bold>Result:</bold> In the training and validation sets, 148 and 145 incident diabetes cases occurred. XGBoost methods selected the 10 most important variables from 15 candidate variables. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body mass index (BMI) and age were the top 3 important variables. And we further established a stepwise model and a prediction nomogram. The AUCs of the stepwise model were 0.933 and 0.910 in the training and validation sets, respectively. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed a perfect fit between the predicted diabetes risk and the observed diabetes risk (<italic>p</italic> = 0.068 for the training set, <italic>p</italic> = 0.165 for the validation set). Decision curve analysis presented the clinical use of the stepwise model and there was a wide range of alternative threshold probability spectrum. And there were almost no the interactions between these predictors (most <italic>P</italic>-values for interaction &gt;0.05). Furthermore, the AUC for the external validation set was 0.830, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test for the external validation set showed no statistically significant difference between the predicted diabetes risk and observed diabetes risk (<italic>P</italic> = 0.824).</p><p><bold>Conclusion:</bold> We established and validated a risk assessment system for characterizing the 3-year risk of incident diabetes.</p>