Predicting incident type 2 diabetes using wearable activity and polygenic risk: A survival-modeling study in All of Us

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• P Value: P < 0.005 for both step count and polygenic risk score associations

• Effect Size: HR 0.83 per 1000 additional steps/day; HR 2.62 per 1-SD increase in polygenic risk score

• Primary Outcome: Incident type 2 diabetes over median 2.92 years follow-up

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: C-index improved from 0.748 (clinical model) to 0.867 (with steps and PRS); optimal step threshold ~7000 steps/day

• Confidence Interval: Steps: 95% CI 0.79-0.88; PRS: 95% CI 2.32-2.96

Clinical Application

Requires genetic testing and sustained wearable device usage; may be limited by cost and technology access Relevant to Australian diabetes prevention programs; wearable devices increasingly covered by private health insurance; genetic testing availability through Medicare for high-risk individuals Adults at risk for type 2 diabetes with access to wearable activity monitoring technology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence is limited on whether daily step counts are uniform across individuals or whether combining them with genetic risk improves prediction of type 2 diabetes (T2D), both essential for precision prevention. We aimed to assess whether objectively measured daily step count and Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) predict the incidence of T2D, and to evaluate the predictive performance of machine-learning models. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 4589 adults in the National Institutes of Health's All of Us Research Program with valid Fitbit step data and whole-genome-derived PRS, excluding individuals with T2D before or within a 180-day lead-in period. Incident T2D was defined by HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dL, or an All of Us T2D condition record. We evaluated Cox and machine-learning survival models. FINDINGS: Over a median of 2.92 years (15 340 person-years), 265 participants developed T2D (5.77% cumulative incidence; 17.27 per 1000 person-years). Risk-reducing thresholds were ∼7000 steps/day (P < .001) but differed by PRS group (∼7800 high vs ∼5800 low; P < .001). Each additional 1000 steps/day was associated with lower T2D risk (adjusted hazards ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88; P < .005), whereas each 1-SD higher PRS was associated with higher T2D risk (adjusted hazards ratio, 2.62; 2.32-2.96; P < .005). Adding steps to a clinical model increased the C-index from 0.748 to 0.774; adding PRS increased it to 0.867. Penalized Cox achieved the highest discrimination (C-index 0.859), followed by survival support vector machine (0.85) and classical Cox (0.846). Calibration was best with Random Survival Forests. INTERPRETATION: Step-count thresholds for reducing T2D risk varied across genetic risk groups, indicating that step counts do not confer uniform protection. Step counts and PRS provided independent, complementary predictive information, and their combination improved prediction of incident T2D.

References

1. 1.Rahman, M. H., Arian, A., Konda, S., McGuinn, L. A., Islam, H., Chowdhury, M. A. H., Shahriar, M. H., Rayna, S. E., Farzana, S., Tasmin, S., Manna, R. M., Haider, M. R., & Ahsan, H. (2026). Predicting incident type 2 diabetes using wearable activity and polygenic risk: A survival-modeling study in All of Us. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaf673