Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33480091›Full record

ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2021

Performance assessment of different machine learning approaches in predicting diabetic ketoacidosis in adults with type 1 diabetes using electronic health records data.

Lin Li, Chuang-Chung Lee, Fang Liz Zhou, Cliona Molony, Zoran Doder, Evgeny Zalmover, Kristen Sharma, Juhaeri Juhaeri, Chuntao Wu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lin LiSanofi U.S. LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3972-735X
Chuang-Chung LeeSanofi U.S. LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Fang Liz ZhouSanofi U.S. LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey, USA.
Cliona MolonySanofi U.S. LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Zoran DoderSanofi U.S. LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey, USA.
Evgeny ZalmoverSanofi U.S. LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey, USA.
Kristen SharmaSanofi U.S. LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey, USA.
Juhaeri JuhaeriSanofi U.S. LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey, USA.
Chuntao WuSanofi U.S. LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey, USA.
Sanofi (United States) · USAVEO Oncology (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the performance of different machine learning (ML) approaches in identifying risk factors for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and predicting DKA.

methodsThis study applied flexible ML (XGBoost, distributed random forest [DRF] and feedforward network) and conventional ML approaches (logistic regression and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator [LASSO]) to 3400 DKA cases and 11 780 controls nested in adults with type 1 diabetes identified from Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record dataset (2007-2018). Area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were computed using fivefold cross validation, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were established using 1000 bootstrap samples. The importance of predictors was compared across these models.

resultsIn the training set, XGBoost and feedforward network yielded higher AUC values (0.89 and 0.86, respectively) than logistic regression (0.83), LASSO (0.83) and DRF (0.81). However, the AUC values were similar (0.82) among these approaches in the test set (95% CI range, 0.80-0.84). While the accuracy values >0.8 and the specificity values >0.9 for all models, the sensitivity values were only 0.4. The differences in these metrics across these models were minimal in the test set. All approaches selected some known risk factors for DKA as the top 10 features. XGBoost and DRF included more laboratory measurements or vital signs compared with conventional ML approaches, while feedforward network included more social demographics.

conclusionsIn our empirical study, all ML approaches demonstrated similar performance, and identified overlapping, but different, top 10 predictors. The difference in selected top predictors needs further research.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetic KetoacidosisAdultElectronic Health RecordsHumansLogistic ModelsMachine LearningAUCdiabetic ketoacidosisleast absolute shrinkage and selection operatorlogistic regressionmachine learningprediction model

Identifiers

PMID33480091
PMCPMC8049019
OpenAlexW3125573453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 OpenQuestion graph.