Longitudinal deep learning predicts 10-year diabetes risk in participants, indicating enhanced screening accuracy.
Background/Objectives: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) develops gradually over many years through a prolonged preclinical phase, yet traditional static risk scores often fail to capture these dynamic metabolic trajectories. We propose a longitudinal deep learning framework to predict the 10-year risk of Type 2 diabetes onset defined by comprehensive ADA criteria by modeling the physiological acceleration of routine clinical biomarkers. Methods: Utilizing an 18-year longitudinal dataset from the community-based Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES) cohort, we selected N=4354 participants with complete follow-up records, ensuring high data integrity without requiring synthetic data augmentation. We constructed a 3-dimensional tensor of 21 non-invasive clinical variables spanning a 6-year observation window. To resolve the inherent precision-recall trade-offs of individual models, we developed a stacking ensemble that integrates Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) architectures via a logistic regression meta-learner. To evaluate the added value of longitudinal modeling, we compared this dynamic framework against a static XGBoost baseline that only saw the most recent data. Results: Evaluated on an independent test set (n=874), the ensemble significantly outperformed baseline models, achieving an overall accuracy of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.88–0.92) and an AUROC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93–0.95). By harmonizing LSTM’s sensitivity and GRU’s precision, the model yielded an exceptional Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 0.97, a sensitivity of 0.80, and a specificity of 0.98. Conclusions: This framework provides a highly accurate, resource-efficient triage instrument for T2D screening, thereby reducing unnecessary clinical alerts and improving screening efficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: