Cited by 27Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and Research

Performance of early risk assessment tools to predict the later development of gestational diabetes

Open access
Kotzaeridi, Grammata, Blätter, Julia, Eppel, Daniel, Rosicky, Ingo, Mittlböck, Martina, Yerlikaya‐Schatten, Gülen, Schatten, Christian, Husslein, Peter +4 more·2021·European Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Background: Several prognostic models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are provided in the literature; however, their clinical significance has not been thoroughly evaluated, especially with regard to application at early gestation and in accordance with the most recent diagnostic criteria. This external validation study aimed to assess the predictive accuracy of published risk estimation models for the later development of GDM at early pregnancy. Methods: In this cohort study, we prospectively included 1132 pregnant women. Risk evaluation was performed before 16 + 0 weeks of gestation including a routine laboratory examination. Study participants were followed‐up until delivery to assess GDM status according to the IADPSG 2010 diagnostic criteria. Fifteen clinical prediction models were calculated according to the published literature. Results: Gestational diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in 239 women, that is 21.1% of the study participants. Discrimination was assessed by the area under the ROC curve and ranged between 60.7% and 76.9%, corresponding to an acceptable accuracy. With some exceptions, calibration performance was poor as most models were developed based on older diagnostic criteria with lower prevalence and therefore tended to underestimate the risk of GDM. The highest variable importance scores were observed for history of GDM and routine laboratory parameters. Conclusions: Most prediction models showed acceptable accuracy in terms of discrimination but lacked in calibration, which was strongly dependent on study settings. Simple biochemical variables such as fasting glucose, HbA1c and triglycerides can improve risk prediction. One model consisting of clinical and laboratory parameters showed satisfactory accuracy and could be used for further investigations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/eci.13630

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Benhalim-2 2020 model, which takes into account interview and biochemical data, showed the highest sensitivity.

    “The Benhalim-2 2020 model, which takes into account interview and biochemical data (propensity score model: history of GDM, FPG, height, triglycerides, age, ethnic origin, first trimester weight, family history of diabetes, HbA1c), showed the highest sensitivity [36].”

    From Gestational Diabetes Mellitus—Recent Literature Review (2022) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Results section’s discrimination table lists the stated clinical and biochemical variables for Benhalima-2 2020 and gives it a ROC-AUC of 76.9%, the highest shown. The paper describes this as discrimination and reports superior net benefit; it does not establish that the model had the highest sensitivity. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]World Health Organization. Diagnostic Criteria and Classification of Hyperglycaemia First Detected in Pregnancy. 2013. http://www.who.int/diabetes/publications/Hyperglycaemia_In_Pregnancy/en/ 24199271

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kotzaeridi, G., Blätter, J., Eppel, D., Rosicky, I., Mittlböck, M., Yerlikaya‐Schatten, G., Schatten, C., Husslein, P., Eppel, W., Huhn, E. A., Tura, A., & Göbl, C. S.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • University Hospital of Basel (CH)
  • National Research Council (IT)
Corresponding author
Göbl, Christian S.
Venue
European Journal of Clinical Investigation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-06-18
Volume
51
Issue
12
Pages
e13630-e13630
ISSN
  • 0014-2972 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2362
OpenAlex
W3166238930
Cited by
27
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3
FWCI
4.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Clinical Investigation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, risk prediction model, early pregnancy, external validation, IADPSG criteria, model calibration, discrimination (statistics), fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, triglycerides, risk assessment tools
MeSH terms
Obesity, Maternal, Pregnancy in Obesity, Adult, Blood Glucose, Blood Pressure, Ethnicity, Fasting, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Medical History Taking, Pregnancy, Prenatal Diagnosis, ROC Curve, Triglycerides, Cohort Studies, Diabetes, Gestational, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review