Evidence mapPaperPMID 37469989Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2023

Predicting diabetic kidney disease for type 2 diabetes mellitus by machine learning in the real world: a multicenter retrospective study.

Xiao Zhu Liu, Minjie Duan, Hao Dong Huang, Yang Zhang, Tian Yu Xiang, Wu Ceng Niu, Bei Zhou, Hao Lin Wang, Ting Ting Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.4field-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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Xiao Zhu LiuDepartment of Cardiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Minjie DuanMedical Data Science Academy, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Hao Dong HuangMedical Data Science Academy, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Yang ZhangMedical Data Science Academy, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Tian Yu XiangInformation Center, The University-Town Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Wu Ceng NiuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Handan First Hospital, Hebei, China.
Bei ZhouDepartment of Cardiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Hao Lin WangCollege of Medical Informatics, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Ting Ting ZhangDepartment of Endocrinology, Fifth Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chongqing Medical University · CNDalian Medical University · CNChinese People's Liberation Army · CNHandan College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) has been reported as a main microvascular complication of diabetes mellitus. Although renal biopsy is capable of distinguishing DKD from Non Diabetic kidney disease(NDKD), no gold standard has been validated to assess the development of DKD.This study aimed to build an auxiliary diagnosis model for type 2 Diabetic kidney disease (T2DKD) based on machine learning algorithms. Methods: Clinical data on 3624 individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) was gathered from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 using a multi-center retrospective database. The data fell into a training set and a validation set at random at a ratio of 8:2. To identify critical clinical variables, the absolute shrinkage and selection operator with the lowest number was employed. Fifteen machine learning models were built to support the diagnosis of T2DKD, and the optimal model was selected in accordance with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and accuracy. The model was improved with the use of Bayesian Optimization methods. The Shapley Additive explanations (SHAP) approach was used to illustrate prediction findings. Results: DKD was diagnosed in 1856 (51.2 percent) of the 3624 individuals within the final cohort. As revealed by the SHAP findings, the Categorical Boosting (CatBoost) model achieved the optimal performance 1in the prediction of the risk of T2DKD, with an AUC of 0.86 based on the top 38 characteristics. The SHAP findings suggested that a simplified CatBoost model with an AUC of 0.84 was built in accordance with the top 12 characteristics. The more basic model features consisted of systolic blood pressure (SBP), creatinine (CREA), length of stay (LOS), thrombin time (TT), Age, prothrombin time (PT), platelet large cell ratio (P-LCR), albumin (ALB), glucose (GLU), fibrinogen (FIB-C), red blood cell distribution width-standard deviation (RDW-SD), as well as hemoglobin A1C(HbA1C). Conclusion: A machine learning-based model for the prediction of the risk of developing T2DKD was built, and its effectiveness was verified. The CatBoost model can contribute to the diagnosis of T2DKD. Clinicians could gain more insights into the outcomes if the ML model is made interpretable.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic NephropathiesAlbuminsBayes TheoremHumansRetrospective StudiesAlbuminsCatBoost modeldiabetic kidney diseasemachine learningpredictiontype 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID37469989
PMCPMC10352831
OpenAlexW4383102228

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.