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.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Development and Validation of Multivariable Electronic Health Record-Based Models to Predict Diabetic Ketoacidosis-Related Hospitalizations for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Toward a Clinically Actionable, Electronic Health Record-Based Machine Learning Model to Forecast 90-Day Change in Hemoglobin AJMIR diabetes · 2025Article
- Predicting and Ranking Diabetic Ketoacidosis Risk Among Youth with Type 1 Diabetes with a Clinic-to-Clinic Transferrable Machine Learning Model.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence applied to diabetes complications: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Article
- A Machine Learning Model for Risk Stratification of Postdiagnosis Diabetic Ketoacidosis Hospitalization in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes: Retrospective Study.JMIR diabetes · 2024Article
- Article
- Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Timeliness of Care among Lung Cancer Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- An "All-Data-on-Hand" Deep Learning Model to Predict Hospitalization for Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: Development and Validation Study.JMIR diabetes · 2023Article
- Performance assessment of different machine learning approaches in predicting diabetic ketoacidosis in adults with type 1 diabetes using electronic health records data.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.