Search

Aims/hypothesis: Although statistical models for predicting type 1 diabetes risk have been developed, approaches that reveal the heterogeneity of the at-risk population by identifying clinically meaningful clusters are lacking. We aimed to identify and characterise clusters of islet autoantibody-positive individuals who share similar characteristics and type 1 diabetes risk., Methods: We tested a novel outcome-guided clustering method in initially non-diabetic autoantibody-positive relatives of individuals with type 1 diabetes, using the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study data (n=1123). The outcome of the analysis was the time to development of type 1 diabetes, and variables in the model included demographic characteristics, genetics, metabolic factors and islet autoantibodies. An independent dataset (the Diabetes Prevention Trial of Type 1 Diabetes Study) (n=706) was used for validation., Results: The analysis revealed six clusters with varying type 1 diabetes risks, categorised into three groups based on the hierarchy of clusters. Group A comprised one cluster with high glucose levels (median for glucose mean AUC 9.48 mmol/l; IQR 9.16-10.02) and high risk (2-year diabetes-free survival probability 0.42; 95% CI 0.34, 0.51). Group B comprised one cluster with high IA-2A titres (median 287 DK units/ml; IQR 250-319) and elevated autoantibody titres (2-year diabetes-free survival probability 0.73; 95% CI 0.67, 0.80). Group C comprised four lower-risk clusters with lower autoantibody titres and glucose levels (with 2-year diabetes-free survival probability ranging from 0.84-0.99 in the four clusters). Within group C, the clusters exhibit variations in characteristics such as glucose levels, C-peptide levels and age. A decision rule for assigning individuals to clusters was developed. Use of the validation dataset confirmed that the clusters can identify individuals with similar characteristics., Conclusions/interpretation: Demographic, metabolic, immunological and genetic markers may be used to identify clusters of distinctive characteristics and different risks of progression to type 1 diabetes among autoantibody-positive individuals with a family history of type 1 diabetes. The results also revealed the heterogeneity in the population and complex interactions between variables., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Although statistical models for predicting type 1 diabetes risk have been developed, approaches that reveal clinically meaningful clusters in the at-risk population and allow for non-linear relationships between predictors are lacking. We aimed to identify and characterize clusters of islet autoantibody-positive individuals that share similar characteristics and type 1 diabetes risk., Methods: We tested a novel outcome-guided clustering method in initially non-diabetic autoantibody-positive relatives of individuals with type 1 diabetes, using the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention (PTP) study data (n=1127). The outcome of the analysis was time to type 1 diabetes and variables in the model included demographics, genetics, metabolic factors and islet autoantibodies. An independent dataset (Diabetes Prevention Trial of Type 1 Diabetes, DPT-1 study) (n=704) was used for validation., Findings: The analysis revealed 8 clusters with varying type 1 diabetes risks, categorized into three groups. Group A had three clusters with high glucose levels and high risk. Group B included four clusters with elevated autoantibody titers. Group C had three lower-risk clusters with lower autoantibody titers and glucose levels. Within the groups, the clusters exhibit variations in characteristics such as glucose levels, C-peptide levels, age, and genetic risk. A decision rule for assigning individuals to clusters was developed. The validation dataset confirms that the clusters can identify individuals with similar characteristics., Interpretation: Demographic, metabolic, immunological, and genetic markers can be used to identify clusters of distinctive characteristics and different risks of progression to type 1 diabetes among autoantibody-positive individuals with a family history of type 1 diabetes. The results also revealed the heterogeneity in the population and complex interactions between variables.

Aims: Misclassification of diabetes is common due to an overlap in the clinical features of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Combined diagnostic models incorporating clinical and biomarker information have recently been developed that can aid classification, but they have not been validated using pancreatic pathology. We evaluated a clinical diagnostic model against histologically defined type 1 diabetes., Methods: We classified cases from the Network for Pancreatic Organ donors with Diabetes (nPOD) biobank as type 1 (n = 111) or non-type 1 (n = 42) diabetes using histopathology. Type 1 diabetes was defined by lobular loss of insulin-containing islets along with multiple insulin-deficient islets. We assessed the discriminative performance of previously described type 1 diabetes diagnostic models, based on clinical features (age at diagnosis, BMI) and biomarker data [autoantibodies, type 1 diabetes genetic risk score (T1D-GRS)], and singular features for identifying type 1 diabetes by the area under the curve of the receiver operator characteristic (AUC-ROC)., Results: Diagnostic models validated well against histologically defined type 1 diabetes. The model combining clinical features, islet autoantibodies and T1D-GRS was strongly discriminative of type 1 diabetes, and performed better than clinical features alone (AUC-ROC 0.97 vs. 0.95; P = 0.03). Histological classification of type 1 diabetes was concordant with serum C-peptide [median < 17 pmol/l (limit of detection) vs. 1037 pmol/l in non-type 1 diabetes; P < 0.0001]., Conclusions: Our study provides robust histological evidence that a clinical diagnostic model, combining clinical features and biomarkers, could improve diabetes classification. Our study also provides reassurance that a C-peptide-based definition of type 1 diabetes is an appropriate surrogate outcome that can be used in large clinical studies where histological definition is impossible. Parts of this study were presented in abstract form at the Network for Pancreatic Organ Donors Conference, Florida, USA, 19-22 February 2019 and Diabetes UK Professional Conference, Liverpool, UK, 6-8 March 2019., (© 2020 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.)

Type 1 diabetes (T1D)-an autoimmune disease that destroys the pancreatic islets, resulting in insulin deficiency-often begins early in life when islet autoantibody appearance signals high risk 1 . However, clinical diabetes can follow in weeks or only after decades, and is very difficult to predict. Ketoacidosis at onset remains common 2,3 and is most severe in the very young 4,5 , in whom it can be life threatening and difficult to treat 6-9 . Autoantibody surveillance programs effectively prevent most ketoacidosis 10-12 but require frequent evaluations whose expense limits public health adoption 13 . Prevention therapies applied before onset, when greater islet mass remains, have rarely been feasible 14 because individuals at greatest risk of impending T1D are difficult to identify. To remedy this, we sought accurate, cost-effective estimation of future T1D risk by developing a combined risk score incorporating both fixed and variable factors (genetic, clinical and immunological) in 7,798 high-risk children followed closely from birth for 9.3 years. Compared with autoantibodies alone, the combined model dramatically improves T1D prediction at ≥2 years of age over horizons up to 8 years of age (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ≥ 0.9), doubles the estimated efficiency of population-based newborn screening to prevent ketoacidosis, and enables individualized risk estimates for better prevention trial selection.

Background: There is much interest in the use of prognostic and diagnostic prediction models in all areas of clinical medicine. The use of machine learning to improve prognostic and diagnostic accuracy in this area has been increasing at the expense of classic statistical models. Previous studies have compared performance between these two approaches but their findings are inconsistent and many have limitations. We aimed to compare the discrimination and calibration of seven models built using logistic regression and optimised machine learning algorithms in a clinical setting, where the number of potential predictors is often limited, and externally validate the models., Methods: We trained models using logistic regression and six commonly used machine learning algorithms to predict if a patient diagnosed with diabetes has type 1 diabetes (versus type 2 diabetes). We used seven predictor variables (age, BMI, GADA islet-autoantibodies, sex, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglyceride) using a UK cohort of adult participants (aged 18-50 years) with clinically diagnosed diabetes recruited from primary and secondary care ( n = 960, 14% with type 1 diabetes). Discrimination performance (ROC AUC), calibration and decision curve analysis of each approach was compared in a separate external validation dataset ( n = 504, 21% with type 1 diabetes)., Results: Average performance obtained in internal validation was similar in all models (ROC AUC ≥ 0.94). In external validation, there were very modest reductions in discrimination with AUC ROC remaining ≥ 0.93 for all methods. Logistic regression had the numerically highest value in external validation (ROC AUC 0.95). Logistic regression had good performance in terms of calibration and decision curve analysis. Neural network and gradient boosting machine had the best calibration performance. Both logistic regression and support vector machine had good decision curve analysis for clinical useful threshold probabilities., Conclusion: Logistic regression performed as well as optimised machine algorithms to classify patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. This study highlights the utility of comparing traditional regression modelling to machine learning, particularly when using a small number of well understood, strong predictor variables., Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Neural mass models (NMMs) are increasingly used to uncover the large-scale mechanisms of brain rhythms in health and disease. The dynamics of these models is dependent upon the choice of parameters, and therefore it is crucial to be able to understand how dynamics change when parameters are varied. Despite being considered low dimensional in comparison to micro-scale, neuronal network models, with regards to understanding the relationship between parameters and dynamics, NMMs are still prohibitively high dimensional for classical approaches such as numerical continuation. Therefore, we need alternative methods to characterise dynamics of NMMs in high dimensional parameter spaces. Here, we introduce a statistical framework that enables the efficient exploration of the relationship between model parameters and selected features of the simulated, emergent model dynamics of NMMs. We combine the classical machine learning approaches of trees and random forests to enable studying the effect that varying multiple parameters has on the dynamics of a model. The method proceeds by using simulations to transform the mathematical model into a database. This database is then used to partition parameter space with respect to dynamic features of interest, using random forests. This allows us to rapidly explore dynamics in high dimensional parameter space, capture the approximate location of qualitative transitions in dynamics and assess the relative importance of all parameters in the model in all dimensions simultaneously. We apply this method to a commonly used NMM in the context of transitions to seizure dynamics. We find that the inhibitory sub-system is most crucial for the generation of seizure dynamics, confirm and expand previous findings regarding the ratio of excitation and inhibition, and demonstrate that previously overlooked parameters can have a significant impact on model dynamics. We advocate the use of this method in future to constrain high dimensional parameter spaces enabling more efficient, person-specific, model calibration.