ArticlePloS one2024
Prediction of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical expenditures associated with Diabetes Mellitus type II based on clinical risk.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Machine Learning in Health Economic Evaluations: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of different machine learning models in estimating the pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical expenditures associated with Diabetes Mellitus type II diagnosis, based on the clinical risk index determined by the analysis of comorbidities. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we have used data from 11,028 anonymized records of patients admitted to a high-complexity hospital in Bogota, Colombia between 2017-2019 with a primary diagnosis of Diabetes. These cases were classified according to Charlson's comorbidity index in several risk categories. The main variables analyzed in this study are hospitalization costs (which include pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical expenditures), age, gender, length of stay, medicines and services consumed, and comorbidities assessed by the Charlson's index. The model's dependent variable is expenditure (composed of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical expenditures). Based on these variables, different machine learning models (Multivariate linear regression, Lasso model, and Neural Networks) were used to estimate the pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical expenditures associated with the clinical risk classification. To evaluate the performance of these models, different metrics were used: Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), Mean Squared Error (MSE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and Coefficient of Determination (R2).
resultsThe results indicate that the Neural Networks model performed better in terms of accuracy in predicting pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical expenditures considering the clinical risk based on Charlson's comorbidity index. A deeper understanding and experimentation with Neural Networks can improve these preliminary results, therefore we can also conclude that the main variables used and those that were proposed can be used as predictors for the medical expenditures of patients with diabetes type-II.
conclusionsWith the increase of technology elements and tools, it is possible to build models that allow decision-makers in hospitals to improve the resource planning process given the accuracy obtained with the different models tested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.