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.
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
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