We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Decision tree-based modelling for identification of potential interactions between type 2 diabetes risk factors: a decade follow-up in a Middle East prospective cohort study.
BMJ Open 2016 December 2
OBJECTIVE: The current study was undertaken for use of the decision tree (DT) method for development of different prediction models for incidence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and for exploring interactions between predictor variables in those models.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study (TLGS).
METHODS: A total of 6647 participants (43.4% men) aged >20 years, without T2D at baselines ((1999-2001) and (2002-2005)), were followed until 2012. 2 series of models (with and without 2-hour postchallenge plasma glucose (2h-PCPG)) were developed using 3 types of DT algorithms. The performances of the models were assessed using sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve (AUC), geometric mean (G-Mean) and F-Measure.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: T2D was primary outcome which defined if fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was ≥7 mmol/L or if the 2h-PCPG was ≥11.1 mmol/L or if the participant was taking antidiabetic medication.
RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 9.5 years, 729 new cases of T2D were identified. The Quick Unbiased Efficient Statistical Tree (QUEST) algorithm had the highest sensitivity and G-Mean among all the models for men and women. The models that included 2h-PCPG had sensitivity and G-Mean of (78% and 0.75%) and (78% and 0.78%) for men and women, respectively. Both models achieved good discrimination power with AUC above 0.78. FPG, 2h-PCPG, waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) were the most important factors to incidence of T2D in both genders. Among men, those with an FPG≤4.9 mmol/L and 2h-PCPG≤7.7 mmol/L had the lowest risk, and those with an FPG>5.3 mmol/L and 2h-PCPG>4.4 mmol/L had the highest risk for T2D incidence. In women, those with an FPG≤5.2 mmol/L and WHtR≤0.55 had the lowest risk, and those with an FPG>5.2 mmol/L and WHtR>0.56 had the highest risk for T2D incidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasises the utility of DT for exploring interactions between predictor variables.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study (TLGS).
METHODS: A total of 6647 participants (43.4% men) aged >20 years, without T2D at baselines ((1999-2001) and (2002-2005)), were followed until 2012. 2 series of models (with and without 2-hour postchallenge plasma glucose (2h-PCPG)) were developed using 3 types of DT algorithms. The performances of the models were assessed using sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve (AUC), geometric mean (G-Mean) and F-Measure.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: T2D was primary outcome which defined if fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was ≥7 mmol/L or if the 2h-PCPG was ≥11.1 mmol/L or if the participant was taking antidiabetic medication.
RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 9.5 years, 729 new cases of T2D were identified. The Quick Unbiased Efficient Statistical Tree (QUEST) algorithm had the highest sensitivity and G-Mean among all the models for men and women. The models that included 2h-PCPG had sensitivity and G-Mean of (78% and 0.75%) and (78% and 0.78%) for men and women, respectively. Both models achieved good discrimination power with AUC above 0.78. FPG, 2h-PCPG, waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) were the most important factors to incidence of T2D in both genders. Among men, those with an FPG≤4.9 mmol/L and 2h-PCPG≤7.7 mmol/L had the lowest risk, and those with an FPG>5.3 mmol/L and 2h-PCPG>4.4 mmol/L had the highest risk for T2D incidence. In women, those with an FPG≤5.2 mmol/L and WHtR≤0.55 had the lowest risk, and those with an FPG>5.2 mmol/L and WHtR>0.56 had the highest risk for T2D incidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasises the utility of DT for exploring interactions between predictor variables.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app