Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of study subjects in the derivation and validation cohorts.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of type 2 diabetes for each risk factor.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Points assigned to predict 3 year incidence of type 2 diabetes.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 1.

Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for each risk score model in predicting type 2 diabetes.

Abbreviation: FPG, fasting plasma glucose. In the delivation cohort, the area under the ROC (95% confidence interval) were 0.717 (0.703–0.731) for the non-invasive model, 0.843 (0.832–0.853) for the model including FPG, 0.827 (0.816–0.838) for the model including HbA1c, and 0.893 (0.883–0.902) for the model including both FPG and HbA1c. In the derivation cohort, the corresponding value were 0.734 (0.715–0.753) for the non-invasive model, 0.835 (0.820–0.851) for the model including FPG, 0.819 (0.803–0.835) for the model including HbA1c, and 0.882 (0.868–0.895) for the model including both FPG and HbA1c.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Observed and expected risk for developing type 2 diabetes (%) in each score of expected risk according to prediction models using the non-invasive model and the model including fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c in the derivation cohort; black bars, observed risk; grey bars, expected risk.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 4.

Predictive performance of the developed diabetes risk scores.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Total point for each risk score and absolute estimated probability (%) of incidence of type 2 diabetes.

More »

Table 5 Expand