Michael E. Bowen, Ildiko Lingvay, Luigi Meneghini, Brett Moran, Noel O. Santini, Song Zhang, Ethan A. Halm
{"title":"D-RISK的推导和验证:电子健康记录驱动的风险评分在临床实践中检测未诊断的血糖异常","authors":"Michael E. Bowen, Ildiko Lingvay, Luigi Meneghini, Brett Moran, Noel O. Santini, Song Zhang, Ethan A. Halm","doi":"10.2337/dc24-1624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE We derive and validate D-RISK, an electronic health record (EHR)-driven risk score to optimize and facilitate screening for undiagnosed dysglycemia (prediabetes + diabetes) in clinical practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used retrospective EHR data (derivation sample) and a prospective diabetes screening study (validation sample) to develop D-RISK. Logistic regression with backward selection was used to predict dysglycemia (HbA1c ≥5.7%) using diabetes risk factors consistently captured in structured EHR data. Model coefficients were converted to a points-based risk score. We report discrimination, sensitivity, and specificity and compare D-RISK to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk test and the ADA and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines. RESULTS The derivation cohort included 11,387 patients (mean age 48 years; 65% female; 42% Hispanic; 32% non-Hispanic Black; mean BMI 32; 29% with hypertension). D-RISK included age, race, BMI, hypertension, and random glucose. The area under curve (AUC) for the risk score was 0.75 (95% CI 0.74–0.76). In the validation screening study (n = 519), the AUC was 0.71 (95% CI 0.66–0.75) which was better than the ADA and USPSTF diabetes screening guidelines (AUC = 0.52 and AUC = 0.58, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Discrimination was similar to the ADA risk test (AUC = 0.67) using patient-reported data to supplement EHR data, although D-RISK was more sensitive (75% vs. 61%) at the recommended screening thresholds. CONCLUSIONS Designed for use in EHR, D-RISK performs better than commonly used screening guidelines and risk scores and may help detect undiagnosed cases of dysglycemia in clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":11140,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes Care","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":14.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Derivation and Validation of D-RISK: An Electronic Health Record–Driven Risk Score to Detect Undiagnosed Dysglycemia in Clinical Practice\",\"authors\":\"Michael E. Bowen, Ildiko Lingvay, Luigi Meneghini, Brett Moran, Noel O. Santini, Song Zhang, Ethan A. Halm\",\"doi\":\"10.2337/dc24-1624\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE We derive and validate D-RISK, an electronic health record (EHR)-driven risk score to optimize and facilitate screening for undiagnosed dysglycemia (prediabetes + diabetes) in clinical practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used retrospective EHR data (derivation sample) and a prospective diabetes screening study (validation sample) to develop D-RISK. Logistic regression with backward selection was used to predict dysglycemia (HbA1c ≥5.7%) using diabetes risk factors consistently captured in structured EHR data. Model coefficients were converted to a points-based risk score. We report discrimination, sensitivity, and specificity and compare D-RISK to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk test and the ADA and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines. RESULTS The derivation cohort included 11,387 patients (mean age 48 years; 65% female; 42% Hispanic; 32% non-Hispanic Black; mean BMI 32; 29% with hypertension). D-RISK included age, race, BMI, hypertension, and random glucose. The area under curve (AUC) for the risk score was 0.75 (95% CI 0.74–0.76). In the validation screening study (n = 519), the AUC was 0.71 (95% CI 0.66–0.75) which was better than the ADA and USPSTF diabetes screening guidelines (AUC = 0.52 and AUC = 0.58, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Discrimination was similar to the ADA risk test (AUC = 0.67) using patient-reported data to supplement EHR data, although D-RISK was more sensitive (75% vs. 61%) at the recommended screening thresholds. CONCLUSIONS Designed for use in EHR, D-RISK performs better than commonly used screening guidelines and risk scores and may help detect undiagnosed cases of dysglycemia in clinical practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetes Care\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":14.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetes Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2337/dc24-1624\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2337/dc24-1624","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
我们推导并验证了电子健康记录(EHR)驱动的风险评分D-RISK,以优化和促进临床实践中未确诊的血糖异常(前驱糖尿病+糖尿病)的筛查。研究设计和方法我们使用回顾性电子病历数据(衍生样本)和前瞻性糖尿病筛查研究(验证样本)来研究D-RISK。利用结构化电子病历数据中一致捕获的糖尿病危险因素,采用Logistic回归和逆向选择预测血糖异常(HbA1c≥5.7%)。将模型系数转换为基于点数的风险评分。我们报告了区别、敏感性和特异性,并将D-RISK与美国糖尿病协会(ADA)风险测试、ADA和美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF)筛查指南进行了比较。结果衍生队列包括11,387例患者(平均年龄48岁;65%的女性;42%的西班牙裔;32%是非西班牙裔黑人;平均BMI为32;29%为高血压)。D-RISK包括年龄、种族、BMI、高血压和随机血糖。风险评分的曲线下面积(AUC)为0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.76)。在验证筛选研究(n = 519)中,AUC为0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75),优于ADA和USPSTF糖尿病筛查指南(AUC分别为0.52和0.58;P, lt;两者均为0.001)。使用患者报告数据来补充电子病历数据的辨别性与ADA风险测试相似(AUC = 0.67),尽管D-RISK在推荐的筛查阈值下更敏感(75%对61%)。结论:设计用于电子病历的D-RISK比常用的筛查指南和风险评分效果更好,可能有助于在临床实践中发现未确诊的血糖异常病例。
Derivation and Validation of D-RISK: An Electronic Health Record–Driven Risk Score to Detect Undiagnosed Dysglycemia in Clinical Practice
OBJECTIVE We derive and validate D-RISK, an electronic health record (EHR)-driven risk score to optimize and facilitate screening for undiagnosed dysglycemia (prediabetes + diabetes) in clinical practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used retrospective EHR data (derivation sample) and a prospective diabetes screening study (validation sample) to develop D-RISK. Logistic regression with backward selection was used to predict dysglycemia (HbA1c ≥5.7%) using diabetes risk factors consistently captured in structured EHR data. Model coefficients were converted to a points-based risk score. We report discrimination, sensitivity, and specificity and compare D-RISK to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk test and the ADA and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines. RESULTS The derivation cohort included 11,387 patients (mean age 48 years; 65% female; 42% Hispanic; 32% non-Hispanic Black; mean BMI 32; 29% with hypertension). D-RISK included age, race, BMI, hypertension, and random glucose. The area under curve (AUC) for the risk score was 0.75 (95% CI 0.74–0.76). In the validation screening study (n = 519), the AUC was 0.71 (95% CI 0.66–0.75) which was better than the ADA and USPSTF diabetes screening guidelines (AUC = 0.52 and AUC = 0.58, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Discrimination was similar to the ADA risk test (AUC = 0.67) using patient-reported data to supplement EHR data, although D-RISK was more sensitive (75% vs. 61%) at the recommended screening thresholds. CONCLUSIONS Designed for use in EHR, D-RISK performs better than commonly used screening guidelines and risk scores and may help detect undiagnosed cases of dysglycemia in clinical practice.
期刊介绍:
The journal's overarching mission can be captured by the simple word "Care," reflecting its commitment to enhancing patient well-being. Diabetes Care aims to support better patient care by addressing the comprehensive needs of healthcare professionals dedicated to managing diabetes.
Diabetes Care serves as a valuable resource for healthcare practitioners, aiming to advance knowledge, foster research, and improve diabetes management. The journal publishes original research across various categories, including Clinical Care, Education, Nutrition, Psychosocial Research, Epidemiology, Health Services Research, Emerging Treatments and Technologies, Pathophysiology, Complications, and Cardiovascular and Metabolic Risk. Additionally, Diabetes Care features ADA statements, consensus reports, review articles, letters to the editor, and health/medical news, appealing to a diverse audience of physicians, researchers, psychologists, educators, and other healthcare professionals.