Search

Objectives: This study modelled diabetes risk for population groups in Canada defined by socioeconomic and lifestyle characteristics and investigated inequities in diabetes risk using a validated population risk prediction algorithm. Methods: We defined population groups, informed by determinants of health frameworks. We applied the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT) to 2017/2018 Canadian Community Health Survey data to predict 10-year diabetes risk and cases across population groups. We modelled a preventive intervention scenario to estimate reductions in diabetes for population groups and impacts on the inequity in diabetes risk across income and education. Results: The population group with at least one lifestyle and at least one socioeconomic/ structural risk factor had the highest estimated 10-year diabetes risk and number of new cases. When an intervention with a 5% relative risk reduction was modelled for this population group, diabetes risk decreased by 0.5% (females) and 0.7% (males) and the inequity in diabetes risk across income and education levels was reduced. Conclusion: Preventative interventions that address socioeconomic and structural risk factors have potential to reduce inequities in diabetes risk and overall diabetes burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare how different imputation methods affect the estimates and performance of a prediction model for premature mortality. Study Design and Setting: Sex-specific Weibull accelerated failure time survival models were run on four separate datasets using complete case, mode, single and multiple imputation to impute missing values. Six performance measures were compared to access predictive accuracy (Nagelkerke R2, integrated brier score), discrimination (Harrell's c-index, discrimination slope) and calibration (calibration in the large, calibration slope). Results: The highest proportion of missingness for a single variable was 10.86% for the female model and 8.24% for the male model. Comparing the performance measures for complete case, mode, single and multiple imputation: the Nagelkerke R2 values for the female model was 0.1084, 0.1116, 0.1120 and 0.111–0.1120 with the male model exhibited similar variation of 0.1050, 0.1078, 0.1078 and 0.1078–0.1081. Harrell's c-index also demonstrated small variation with values of 0.8666, 0.8719, 0.8719 and 0.8711–0.8719 for the female model and 0.8549, 0.8548, 0.8550 and 0.8550–0.8553 for the male model. Conclusion: In the scenarios examined in this study, mode imputation performed well when using a population health survey compared to single and multiple imputation when predictive performance measures is the main model goal. To generate unbiased hazard ratios, multiple imputation methods were superior. This study shows the need to consider the best imputation approach for a predictive model development given the conditions of missing data and the goals of the analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Coronary artery disease (CAD) patients frequently face readmissions due to suboptimal disease management. Prediction models are pivotal for detecting early unplanned readmissions. This review offers a unified assessment, aiming to lay the groundwork for enhancing prediction models and informing prevention strategies. Methods: A search through five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure) up to September 2023 identified studies on prediction models for coronary artery disease patient readmissions for this review. Two independent reviewers used the CHARMS checklist for data extraction and the PROBAST tool for bias assessment. Results: From 12,457 records, 15 studies were selected, contributing 30 models targeting various CAD patient groups (AMI, CABG, ACS) from primarily China, the USA, and Canada. Models utilized varied methods such as logistic regression and machine learning, with performance predominantly measured by the c-index. Key predictors included age, gender, and hospital stay duration. Readmission rates in the studies varied from 4.8% to 45.1%. Despite high bias risk across models, several showed notable accuracy and calibration. Conclusion: The study highlights the need for thorough external validation and the use of the PROBAST tool to reduce bias in models predicting readmission for CAD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]