ArticlePloS one2025
Predicting diabetes mellitus metabolic goals and chronic complications transitions-analysis based on natural language processing and machine learning models.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Machine Learning Framework for HbA1c Prediction: Data Enrichment, Cost Optimization, and Interpretability Through Stratified Regression and Multi-Stage Feature Selection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate Diabetes mellitus (DM) progression at one and two years in terms of glycemic targets and development of complications. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe analyzed a retrospective cohort of adult DM patients treated in a Health Maintenance Organization in Colombia, including those with at least one glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurement in 2018, 2019, and 2020. We defined four disease transition stages based on metabolic goals according to HbA1c levels and complications: 1. Within HbA1c goals and without complications; 2. Outside goals and without complications, 3. Within goals, but with complications, and 4. Outside goals and with complications. We applied Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques to extract relevant clinical information from Electronic Health Records. Machine learning (ML) models were used to predict patient progression.
resultsA total of 23,802 patients were included. Despite achieving initial glycemic control, more than 60% of patients who started within HbA1c targets and without complications developed chronic complications within two years. Our models, which achieved up to 80% accuracy and F1 scores above 74%, identified key predictors of disease progression. Adherence to dyslipidemia treatment guidelines significantly reduced the likelihood of HbA1c deterioration and complications, whereas non-adherence to pharmacological treatments increased the risk of complications. These findings suggest that HbA1c control alone is insufficient to prevent disease progression and that a more comprehensive management approach-including lipid control, kidney function monitoring, and improved adherence to clinical guidelines-is necessary.
conclusionsPatient compliance with pharmacological treatments, professional adherence to clinical practice guidelines, and lifestyle interventions play a crucial role in diabetes progression. While our models provide strong predictive capabilities, improving data quality and integration remains essential for better forecasting and intervention strategies.
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.