Back

Assessing racial bias in type 2 diabetes risk prediction algorithms

Cronje, H. T.; Katsiferis, A.; Elsenburg, L. K.; Andersen, T. O.; Rod, N. H.; Nguyen, T.-L.; Varga, T. V.

2023-01-13 endocrinology
10.1101/2023.01.13.23284517 medRxiv
Show abstract

Risk prediction models for type 2 diabetes can be useful for the early detection of individuals at high risk. However, models may also bias clinical decision-making processes, for instance by differential risk miscalibration across racial groups. We investigated whether the Prediabetes Risk Test (PRT) issued by the National Diabetes Prevention Program, and two prognostic models, the Framingham Offspring Risk Score, and the ARIC Model, demonstrate racial bias between non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks. We used National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, sampled in six independent two-year batches between 1999 and 2010. A total of 9,987 adults without a prior diagnosis of diabetes and with fasting blood samples available were included. We calculated race- and year-specific average predicted risks of type 2 diabetes according to the risk models. We compared the predicted risks with observed ones extracted from the US Diabetes Surveillance System across racial groups (summary calibration). All investigated models were found to be miscalibrated with regards to race, consistently across the survey years. The Framingham Offspring Risk Score overestimated type 2 diabetes risk for non-Hispanic Whites and underestimated risk for non-Hispanic Blacks. The PRT and the ARIC models overestimated risk for both races, but more so for non-Hispanic Whites. The risk of type 2 diabetes extracted from these landmark models were more severely overestimated for non-Hispanic Whites compared to non-Hispanic Blacks, potentially resulting in a larger fraction of non-Hispanic Whites being prioritized for a preventive intervention, but also more likely to be overdiagnosed and overtreated, with a larger fraction of non-Hispanic Blacks being potentially underprioritized and undertreated.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Diabetologia
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.7%
2
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.0%
3
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 12%
6.5%
4
Diabetes Care
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Diabetes
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.1%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.1%
7
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
8
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.8%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.1%
10
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.9%
11
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
12
BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
13
Frontiers in Endocrinology
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
15
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
16
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
17
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
18
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
19
Molecular Systems Biology
142 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
22
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
23
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
24
Genetics in Medicine Open
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
25
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
26
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
27
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
28
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
29
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.5%
30
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%