Type 1 diabetes defined by severe insulin deficiency occurs after 30 years of age and is commonly treated as type 2 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Late-onset type 1 diabetes can be difficult to identify. Measurement of endogenous insulin secretion using C-peptide provides a gold standard classification of diabetes type in longstanding diabetes that closely relates to treatment requirements. We aimed to determine the prevalence and characteristics of type 1 diabetes defined by severe endogenous insulin deficiency after age 30 and assess whether these individuals are identified and managed as having type 1 diabetes in clinical practice. METHODS: We assessed the characteristics of type 1 diabetes defined by rapid insulin requirement (within 3 years of diagnosis) and severe endogenous insulin deficiency (non-fasting C-peptide <200 pmol/l) in 583 participants with insulin-treated diabetes, diagnosed after age 30, from the Diabetes Alliance for Research in England (DARE) population cohort. We compared characteristics with participants with retained endogenous insulin secretion (>600 pmol/l) and 220 participants with severe insulin deficiency who were diagnosed under age 30. RESULTS: Twenty-one per cent of participants with insulin-treated diabetes who were diagnosed after age 30 met the study criteria for type 1 diabetes. Of these participants, 38% did not receive insulin at diagnosis, of whom 47% self-reported type 2 diabetes. Rapid insulin requirement was highly predictive of severe endogenous insulin deficiency: 85% required insulin within 1 year of diagnosis, and 47% of all those initially treated without insulin who progressed to insulin treatment within 3 years of diagnosis had severe endogenous insulin deficiency. Participants with late-onset type 1 diabetes defined by development of severe insulin deficiency had similar clinical characteristics to those with young-onset type 1 diabetes. However, those with later onset type 1 diabetes had a modestly lower type 1 diabetes genetic risk score (0.268 vs 0.279; p < 0.001 [expected type 2 diabetes population median, 0.231]), a higher islet autoantibody prevalence (GAD-, islet antigen 2 [IA2]- or zinc transporter protein 8 [ZnT8]-positive) of 78% at 13 years vs 62% at 26 years of diabetes duration; (p = 0.02), and were less likely to identify as having type 1 diabetes (79% vs 100%; p < 0.001) vs those with young-onset disease. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Type 1 diabetes diagnosed over 30 years of age, defined by severe insulin deficiency, has similar clinical and biological characteristics to that occurring at younger ages, but is frequently not identified. Clinicians should be aware that patients progressing to insulin within 3 years of diagnosis have a high likelihood of type 1 diabetes, regardless of initial diagnosis.

Logistic regression has similar performance to optimised machine learning algorithms in a clinical setting: application to the discrimination between type 1 and type 2 diabetes in young adults.

BACKGROUND: There is much interest in the use of prognostic and diagnostic prediction models in all areas of clinical medicine. The use of machine learning to improve prognostic and diagnostic accuracy in this area has been increasing at the expense of classic statistical models. Previous studies have compared performance between these two approaches but their findings are inconsistent and many have limitations. We aimed to compare the discrimination and calibration of seven models built using logistic regression and optimised machine learning algorithms in a clinical setting, where the number of potential predictors is often limited, and externally validate the models. METHODS: We trained models using logistic regression and six commonly used machine learning algorithms to predict if a patient diagnosed with diabetes has type 1 diabetes (versus type 2 diabetes). We used seven predictor variables (age, BMI, GADA islet-autoantibodies, sex, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglyceride) using a UK cohort of adult participants (aged 18-50 years) with clinically diagnosed diabetes recruited from primary and secondary care (n = 960, 14% with type 1 diabetes). Discrimination performance (ROC AUC), calibration and decision curve analysis of each approach was compared in a separate external validation dataset (n = 504, 21% with type 1 diabetes). RESULTS: Average performance obtained in internal validation was similar in all models (ROC AUC ≥ 0.94). In external validation, there were very modest reductions in discrimination with AUC ROC remaining ≥ 0.93 for all methods. Logistic regression had the numerically highest value in external validation (ROC AUC 0.95). Logistic regression had good performance in terms of calibration and decision curve analysis. Neural network and gradient boosting machine had the best calibration performance. Both logistic regression and support vector machine had good decision curve analysis for clinical useful threshold probabilities. CONCLUSION: Logistic regression performed as well as optimised machine algorithms to classify patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. This study highlights the utility of comparing traditional regression modelling to machine learning, particularly when using a small number of well understood, strong predictor variables.