Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34868616›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Use and performance of machine learning models for type 2 diabetes prediction in clinical and community care settings: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of predictive modeling studies.

Kushan De Silva, Joanne Enticott, Christopher Barton, Andrew Forbes, Sajal Saha, Rujuta Nikam

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Machine learning for diabetes clinical decision support: a review.Advances in computational intelligence · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kushan De SilvaMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0301-0805
Joanne EnticottMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Australia.
Christopher BartonDepartment of General Practice, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Australia.
Andrew ForbesBiostatistics Unit, Division of Research Methodology, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Australia.
Sajal SahaDepartment of General Practice, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Australia.
Rujuta NikamDepartment of General Practice, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5584-9306
Monash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMachine learning involves the use of algorithms without explicit instructions. Of late, machine learning models have been widely applied for the prediction of type 2 diabetes. However, no evidence synthesis of the performance of these prediction models of type 2 diabetes is available. We aim to identify machine learning prediction models for type 2 diabetes in clinical and community care settings and determine their predictive performance.

methodsThe systematic review of English language machine learning predictive modeling studies in 12 databases will be conducted. Studies predicting type 2 diabetes in predefined clinical or community settings are eligible. Standard CHARMS and TRIPOD guidelines will guide data extraction. Methodological quality will be assessed using a predefined risk of bias assessment tool. The extent of validation will be categorized by Reilly-Evans levels. Primary outcomes include model performance metrics of discrimination ability, calibration, and classification accuracy. Secondary outcomes include candidate predictors, algorithms used, level of validation, and intended use of models. The random-effects meta-analysis of c-indices will be performed to evaluate discrimination abilities. The c-indices will be pooled per prediction model, per model type, and per algorithm. Publication bias will be assessed through funnel plots and regression tests. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to estimate the effects of study quality and missing data on primary outcome. The sources of heterogeneity will be assessed through meta-regression. Subgroup analyses will be performed for primary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required, as no primary or personal data are collected. Findings will be disseminated through scientific sessions and peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019130886.

Indexed as

machine learningmeta-analysisprediction modelsprotocolType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID34868616
PMCPMC8642048
OpenAlexW3202933489

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.