ArticleDiabetes/metabolism research and reviews2025
Validation of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) in a Central-European Population for the Prediction of Cumulative Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes Over 8-Years-Follow-Up of the Budakalász Health Examination Survey (BHES).
Article in Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsFINDRISC is widely used to assess 10-year incidence of drug-treated type 2 diabetes; however, it may require recalibration before implementation in new populations. Thus, we investigated the performance of FINDRISC and recalibrated it in the Hungarian population.
methods8-year follow-up data for incident type 2 diabetes was ascertained from the reimbursement database of Hungary for 2059 diabetes-free participants of a voluntary survey (2011-2013). Incident diabetes was based on repeated prescription of antidiabetic medications. Discrimination of the original and the recalibrated (multiple logistic regression) FINDRISC was compared using ROC analysis.
results279 (13.6%) incident diabetes cases were found. Age, waist circumference, antihypertensive treatment, and history of elevated blood glucose were independent predictors of incident diabetes. Re-estimating the weights improved discrimination ([AUC]: 0.68 [95% CI 0.65-0.71] vs. original: 0.66 [95% CI 0.63-0.69], p = 0.02). Even after the omission of variables non-independent predictors of diabetes, the AUC remained better than the original score and similar to the reweighted score (AUC: 0.68 [95% CI 0.65-0.71] vs. original p = 0.04 vs. reweighted model p = 0.83). Discrimination was worse for those ≥ 65 years versus younger people.
conclusionsValidation and recalibration are important steps before using the FINDRISC in a population different from the derivation cohort. Omission of some variables (physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and family history of diabetes) that are not readily available did not significantly worsen the performance of the model. FINDRISC may not be a good predictor of incident diabetes in older populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.