Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36899426›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2023

Prediction of the risk of developing end-stage renal diseases in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus using artificial intelligence algorithms.

Shuo-Ming Ou, Ming-Tsun Tsai, Kuo-Hua Lee, Wei-Cheng Tseng, Chih-Yu Yang, Tz-Heng Chen, Pin-Jie Bin, Tzeng-Ji Chen, Yao-Ping Lin, Wayne Huey-Herng Sheu and 2 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shuo-Ming OuDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan.
Ming-Tsun TsaiDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan.
Kuo-Hua LeeDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan.
Wei-Cheng TsengDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan.
Chih-Yu YangDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan.
Tz-Heng ChenDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan.
Pin-Jie BinGraduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Tzeng-Ji ChenSchool of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yao-Ping LinDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan.
Wayne Huey-Herng SheuSchool of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yuan-Chia ChuInformation Management Office, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan. xd.yuanchia@gmail.com.
Der-Cherng TarngDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan. dctarng@vghtpe.gov.tw.
Taipei Veterans General Hospital · TWNational Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWKaohsiung Medical University · TW

Funding

Foundation for Poison Control FPC-109-002Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan MOST 106-2314-B-010-039-MY3, MOST 107-2314-B-075-052, MOST 108-2314- B-075-008, MOST 109-2314-B-075 -067-MY3, MOST 109-2320-B-075- 006, MOST 109-2314-B-075-097-MY3, MOST110-2312-B-075-002, MOST 110-2634-F-A49- 005, MOST 110- 2320-B-075- 004-MY3Taipei, Taichung, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Tri-Service General Hospital, Academia Sinica Joint Research Program VTA110-V1-3-1Taipei Veterans General Hospital V107B- 027, V108B-023, V108C-103, V108D42-004-MY3-2, V109B-022, V109C-114, V109D50-001-MY3-1, V109D50- 001-MY3-2, V109D50-001-MY3-3, V109D50 -002-MY3-3, V109E-008- 5(110), V110C-152, V110E-003-2,V110E-003-2, V111E-002-3,V111C-171, V111C-151, V111D60-004-MY3-1, V112C-175, V112D66-002-MY2-1Taipei Veterans General Hospital-National Yang-Ming University Excellent Physician Scientists Cultivation Program No.104-V-B-044
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) imposes a great burden on healthcare systems, and these patients experience higher long-term risks for developing end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Managing diabetic nephropathy becomes more challenging when kidney function starts declining. Therefore, developing predictive models for the risk of developing ESRD in newly diagnosed T2DM patients may be helpful in clinical settings.

methodsWe established machine learning models constructed from a subset of clinical features collected from 53,477 newly diagnosed T2DM patients from January 2008 to December 2018 and then selected the best model. The cohort was divided, with 70% and 30% of patients randomly assigned to the training and testing sets, respectively.

resultsThe discriminative ability of our machine learning models, including logistic regression, extra tree classifier, random forest, gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and light gradient boosting machine were evaluated across the cohort. XGBoost yielded the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.953, followed by extra tree and GBDT, with AUC values of 0.952 and 0.938 on the testing dataset. The SHapley Additive explanation summary plot in the XGBoost model illustrated that the top five important features included baseline serum creatinine, mean serum creatine within 1 year before the diagnosis of T2DM, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, spot urine protein-to-creatinine ratio and female gender.

conclusionsBecause our machine learning prediction models were based on routinely collected clinical features, they can be used as risk assessment tools for developing ESRD. By identifying high-risk patients, intervention strategies may be provided at an early stage.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDiabetes mellitusEnd-stage renal diseaseMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID36899426
PMCPMC10007785
OpenAlexW4323825318

What Socratic holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read34
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.