ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Characterizing clinical risk profiles of major complications in type 2 diabetes mellitus using deep learning algorithms.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop a self-reportable risk assessment tool for elderly type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, evaluating risks of diabetic nephropathy (DN), retinopathy (DR), peripheral neuropathy (DPN), and diabetic foot (DF) using machine learning, thereby providing new insights and tools for the screening and intervention of these complications. Materials and methods: Data from 1,448 T2DM patients at Xi'an No.9 Hospital were used. After preprocessing, five machine learning algorithms (XGBoost, LightGBM, Random Forest, TabPFN, CatBoost) were applied. Models were trained on 70% of the data and evaluated on 30%, with performance assessed by multiple metrics and SHAP analysis for feature importance. Results: The analysis identified 33 risk factors, including 6 shared risk factors (UACR for DN and DR; diabetes duration for DR, DPN, and DF; IBILI for DF and DPN; history of DN for DR and DF; U-Cr for DR and DF; MCHC for DN and DPN) and 27 unique risk factors. Model performance was robust: for DN, TabPFN achieved an AUC of 0.905 and Random Forest an accuracy of 0.878; for DR, LightGBM attained an AUC of 0.794; for DPN, both TabPFN and CatBoost achieved a perfect recall of 1.000 and F1-score of 0.915; and for DF, LightGBM attaining the highest AUC of 0.704. SHAP analysis highlighted key features for each complication, such as UACR and Y-protein for DN, diabetes duration and TPOAB for DR, history of DN and IBILI for DF, and diabetes duration and SBP for DPN. Conclusion: This study employed interpretable machine learning to characterize risk factor profiles for multiple T2DM complications, identifying both common and distinct factors associated with major complications. The findings provide a foundation for exploring personalized risk management strategies and highlight the potential of data-driven approaches to inform early intervention research in T2DM complications.
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.