. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jun 25.

Published in final edited form as: Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Apr;26(2):189–201. doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2011.09.002

Table 2.

Eight prospective studies comparing clinical and genetic type 2 diabetes prediction models.

Study	n	Clinical model and AUC		Genetic model (no. of SNPs) and AUC		Clinical + genetic model AUC	p
Rotterdam⁴⁶	5297	Age, sex, BMI	0.66	18	0.60	0.68	<0.0001
Malmö⁴¹	16,061	Age, sex, BMI, FG, BP, TG, FH	0.74	11	0.63	0.75	0.0001
Botnia⁴¹	2770	Age, sex, BMI, FG, BP, TG, FH	0.79	11	0.68	0.80	0.23
Framingham Offspring⁴⁵	2377	Age, sex, BMI, FG, BP, TG, FH	0.900	18^a	0.581	0.901	0.49
Framingham Offspring⁴⁷	3471	Age, sex, BMI, FG, BP, TG, FH	0.903	40a	0.606	0.906	0.04
Whitehall II⁸⁰	5135	Age, sex, BMI, FG, BP, TG, FH	0.78	20	0.54	0.78	0.10
DESIR⁸¹	3442	Age, sex, average BMI over 9 years	0.82	3	0.56	0.83	NR
DESIR³⁷	3817	WC, HTN, FG, GGT, FHD, smoking (men), BMI (women)	0.850 (men)	2	NR	0.851 (men)	NR
DESIR³⁷	3817	WC, HTN, FG, GGT, FHD, smoking (men), BMI (women)	0.917 (women)	2	NR	0.912 (women)	NR

P value compares areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) from clinical + genetic model to clinical model alone. BMI, body-mass index. BP, blood pressure. FG, fasting plasma glucose. FH, family history of diabetes. GGT, gamma-glutamyl transferase. HTN, hypertension. NR, not reported. TG, triglycerides. WC, waist circumference.

Genetic model also adjusted for sex.