Back to research feed

Diabetes research and clinical practice

September 20, 2026 · via Europe PMC

Risk prediction models for incident type 2 diabetes: A scoping review and an update to a systematic review.

Amirvala R, Hadaegh F, Khalili D, Rahmani F, Asgari S.

ReviewAbstract only — full text under license

AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only

Type 2 diabetes risk prediction models now routinely report discrimination, but external validation, calibration, and risk-of-bias reporting remain inconsistent.

What was studied

A scoping review of historical regression-based prediction models for incident type 2 diabetes combined with a systematic review update of models published from November 2019 to January 2026, assessed with CHARMS, TRIPOD, and PROBAST.

Key findings

  • Scoping review: 50 primary studies (median n = 5,217; follow-up 7 years); internal validation reported in 84.0% vs external in 16.0%; AUC in 90.0%
  • Update: 20 new studies (median n = 8,879; follow-up 8.7 years); internal validation 55.0%, external 50.0%, calibration 75.0%, AUC 75.0%
  • Risk of bias remained high in 85.0% of updated studies

Clinical relevance

Suggests caution before adopting diabetes risk models in practice, as most still carry a high risk of bias and need external validation in diverse populations.

Who should care

Endocrinology

Limitations

Only PubMed was searched, only English-language regression models were included, and machine-learning models and validation studies were excluded.

Diabetes risk models have improved in reporting but most still need better validation before clinical use.

This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.

Abstract

Early identification of high-risk individuals is key for type 2 diabetes prevention. This study combines a scoping review of historical risk prediction models with a systematic review update of recent models (2019-2026) to map methodological evolution, geographical trends, and reporting quality. PubMed was searched for existing systematic reviews (1993-January 2026) for the scoping review, and for new primary studies (November 2019-January 2026) to update prior evidence. Original English-language regression-based prediction models for incident type 2 diabetes in adults were included; validation studies, machine-learning models, and non-original publications were excluded. Data were synthesised narratively and descriptively, with quality assessed using CHARMS, TRIPOD, and PROBAST. The scoping review synthesised 50 primary studies (median n = 5,217; follow-up 7 years); internal validation was reported in 84.0% versus 16.0% external, and AUC in 90.0%. The systematic update identified 20 new studies (median n = 8,879; follow-up 8.7 years); internal and external validation were respectively reported in 55.0% and 50.0%, calibration in 75.0%, and AUC in 75.0%. Risk of bias remained high in 85.0% of updated studies. Discrimination reporting is now standard, but external validation, calibration, and risk-of-bias reporting remain inconsistent. Future models should prioritise external validation and evaluation in diverse populations before clinical implementation.

DOI

10.1016/j.diabres.2026.113576

PMID

42764073

Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.

Want more like this?

Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.

Back to the research feed

Create a free account · Sign in