Paul J Christine1, Rebekah Young2, Sara D Adar3, Alain G Bertoni4, Michele Heisler5, Mercedes R Carnethon6, Rodney A Hayward5, Ana V Diez Roux7. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: pjchris@umich.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 5. Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 7. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate if adding SES to risk prediction models based upon traditional risk factors improves the prediction of diabetes. METHODS: Risk prediction models without and with individual- and area-level SES predictors were compared using the prospective Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to estimate hazard ratios for SES predictors and to generate 10-year predicted risks for 5,021 individuals without diabetes at baseline followed from 2000 to 2012. C-statistics were used to compare model discrimination, and the proportion of individuals reclassified into higher or lower risk categories with the addition of SES predictors was calculated. The accuracy of risk prediction by SES was assessed by comparing observed and predicted risks across tertiles of the SES variables. Statistical analyses were performed in 2015-2016. RESULTS: Over a median of 9.2 years of follow-up, 615 individuals developed diabetes. Individual- and area-level SES variables did not significantly improve model discrimination or reclassify substantial numbers of individuals across risk categories. Models without SES predictors generally underestimated risk for low-SES individuals or individuals residing in low-SES areas (underestimates ranging from 0.31% to 1.07%) and overestimated risk for high-SES individuals or individuals residing in high-SES areas (overestimates ranging from 0.70% to 1.30%), and the addition of SES variables largely mitigated these differences. CONCLUSIONS: Standard diabetes risk models may underestimate risk for low-SES individuals and overestimate risk for those of high SES. Adding SES predictors helps correct this systematic misestimation, but may not improve model discrimination.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate if adding SES to risk prediction models based upon traditional risk factors improves the prediction of diabetes. METHODS: Risk prediction models without and with individual- and area-level SES predictors were compared using the prospective Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to estimate hazard ratios for SES predictors and to generate 10-year predicted risks for 5,021 individuals without diabetes at baseline followed from 2000 to 2012. C-statistics were used to compare model discrimination, and the proportion of individuals reclassified into higher or lower risk categories with the addition of SES predictors was calculated. The accuracy of risk prediction by SES was assessed by comparing observed and predicted risks across tertiles of the SES variables. Statistical analyses were performed in 2015-2016. RESULTS: Over a median of 9.2 years of follow-up, 615 individuals developed diabetes. Individual- and area-level SES variables did not significantly improve model discrimination or reclassify substantial numbers of individuals across risk categories. Models without SES predictors generally underestimated risk for low-SES individuals or individuals residing in low-SES areas (underestimates ranging from 0.31% to 1.07%) and overestimated risk for high-SES individuals or individuals residing in high-SES areas (overestimates ranging from 0.70% to 1.30%), and the addition of SES variables largely mitigated these differences. CONCLUSIONS: Standard diabetes risk models may underestimate risk for low-SES individuals and overestimate risk for those of high SES. Adding SES predictors helps correct this systematic misestimation, but may not improve model discrimination.
Authors: Jens Ludwig; Lisa Sanbonmatsu; Lisa Gennetian; Emma Adam; Greg J Duncan; Lawrence F Katz; Ronald C Kessler; Jeffrey R Kling; Stacy Tessler Lindau; Robert C Whitaker; Thomas W McDade Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Peter M Brindle; Alex McConnachie; Mark N Upton; Carole L Hart; George Davey Smith; Graham C M Watt Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Christie M Bartels; Ann Chodara; Yi Chen; Xing Wang; W Ryan Powell; Fangfang Shi; Maria Schletzbaum; Ann M Sheehy; Farah A Kaiksow; Andrea L Gilmore-Bykovskyi; Shivani Garg; Menggang Yu; Amy J Kind Journal: Semin Arthritis Rheum Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 5.431
Authors: Shayla N M Durfey; Amy J H Kind; William R Buckingham; Eva H DuGoff; Amal N Trivedi Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 3.402