Machine learning-based risk predictive models for diabetic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Machine learning (ML) models are being increasingly employed to predict the risk of developing and progressing diabetic kidney disease (DKD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, the performance of these models still varies, which limits their widespread adoption and practical application. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize and evaluate the performance and clinical applicability of these risk predictive models and to identify key research gaps. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the performance of ML predictive models. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for English-language studies using ML algorithms to predict the risk of DKD in patients with T2DM, covering the period from database inception to April 18, 2024. The primary performance metric for the models was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) checklist. Results: 26 studies that met the eligibility criteria were included into the meta-analysis. 25 studies performed internal validation, but only 8 studies conducted external validation. A total of 94 ML models were developed, with 81 models evaluated in the internal validation sets and 13 in the external validation sets. The pooled AUC was 0.839 (95% CI 0.787-0.890) in the internal validation and 0.830 (95% CI 0.784-0.877) in the external validation sets. Subgroup analysis based on the type of ML showed that the pooled AUC for traditional regression ML was 0.797 (95% CI 0.777-0.816), for ML was 0.811 (95% CI 0.785-0.836), and for deep learning was 0.863 (95% CI 0.825-0.900). A total of 26 ML models were included, and the AUCs of models that were used three or more times were pooled. Among them, the random forest (RF) models demonstrated the best performance with a pooled AUC of 0.848 (95% CI 0.785-0.911). Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that ML exhibit high performance in predicting DKD risk in T2DM patients. However, challenges related to data bias during model development and validation still need to be addressed. Future research should focus on enhancing data transparency and standardization, as well as validating these models' generalizability through multicenter studies. Systematic Review Registration: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-9-0038/, identifier INPLASY202490038.