ArticleBMJ open2026
Development and validation of a two-stage machine learning model for personalised type 2 diabetes screening in the All of Us Research Program and UK Biobank.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and externally validate a two-stage machine learning framework that integrates polygenic risk and clinical variables for early identification of individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
methodsWe conducted a prospective prediction study using data from the All of Us Research Program for model development and the UK Biobank for external validation. Two models were constructed. Stage 1 used gradient boosted decision trees (XGBoost) with cross validation, automated hyperparameter optimisation and class weighting to predict 5-year incident type 2 diabetes using demographic, clinical and polygenic predictors. Stage 2 incorporated glycated haemoglobin or fasting glucose measurements to refine risk estimates. Model interpretation used SHapley Additive exPlanations values and permutation importance, and logistic regression and random forest models served as comparators. Discrimination of all models was compared using the DeLong test.
resultsThe Stage 1 model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.81 in All of Us and 0.82 in UK Biobank, performing significantly better than the phenotype-only model in UK Biobank (DeLong p=1.05×10⁻⁷⁶). Higher polygenic risk quartiles were associated with increased incidence of type 2 diabetes in both cohorts (global χ
conclusionA two-stage machine learning framework that integrates genetic and clinical information can support personalised screening for type 2 diabetes across diverse populations. The approach demonstrated robust performance across cohorts and offers a practical structure for early risk identification.
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.