ArticleScientific reports2022
Application of machine learning methods for the prediction of true fasting status in patients performing blood tests.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The fasting blood glucose (FBG) values extracted from electronic medical records (EMR) are assumed valid in existing research, which may cause diagnostic bias due to misclassification of fasting status. We proposed a machine learning (ML) algorithm to predict the fasting status of blood samples. This cross-sectional study was conducted using the EMR of a medical center from 2003 to 2018 and a total of 2,196,833 ontological FBGs from the outpatient service were enrolled. The theoretical true fasting status are identified by comparing the values of ontological FBG with average glucose levels derived from concomitant tested HbA1c based on multi-criteria. In addition to multiple logistic regression, we extracted 67 features to predict the fasting status by eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost). The discrimination and calibration of the prediction models were also assessed. Real-world performance was gauged by the prevalence of ineffective glucose measurement (IGM). Of the 784,340 ontologically labeled fasting samples, 77.1% were considered theoretical FBGs. The median (IQR) glucose and HbA1c level of ontological and theoretical fasting samples in patients without diabetes mellitus (DM) were 94.0 (87.0, 102.0) mg/dL and 5.6 (5.4, 5.9)%, and 92.0 (86.0, 99.0) mg/dL and 5.6 (5.4, 5.9)%, respectively. The XGBoost showed comparable calibration and AUROC of 0.887 than that of 0.868 in multiple logistic regression in the parsimonious approach and identified important predictors of glucose level, home-to-hospital distance, age, and concomitantly serum creatinine and lipid testing. The prevalence of IGM dropped from 27.8% based on ontological FBGs to 0.48% by using algorithm-verified FBGs. The proposed ML algorithm or multiple logistic regression model aids in verification of the fasting status.
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.