ArticleDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2026
Early, unplanned readmission in diabetes inpatients: Comparing the utility and performance of machine learning and traditional prediction models to guide timely diabetes management team review.
Article in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Author reply.Internal medicine journal · 2026Article
- Temporal trends in glycaemia and hospital outcomes in three metropolitan Australian hospitals, 2017-2024.Internal medicine journal · 2026Observational
- Early, unplanned readmission in diabetes inpatients: Comparing the utility and performance of machine learning and traditional prediction models to guide timely diabetes management team review.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInpatients with diabetes have higher early unplanned readmission (EUR) rates. Diabetes management team (DMT) review reduces EUR. While glucose-based patient selection for DMT reduces in-hospital adverse outcomes, this single criterion is a suboptimal predictor of EUR.
aimWe developed, compared and externally validated four EUR prediction models in diabetes inpatients using primarily early admission data to facilitate timely review. Secondarily, we investigated how combining predictive and glucose data can refine patient selection for DMT review.
methodsWe constructed three traditional models (classification tree, logistic group lasso, elastic net) and a neural network model using 14 routinely available variables. Models were externally validated and performance assessed by area under the curve (AUC). We analysed the overlap between high-risk patients and those with abnormal glucose (≥1 glucose level <4 or >15 mmol/L) according to pre-specified sensitivities (25%, 50%, 75%).
resultsGroup lasso, elastic net and neural network performed similarly (AUC 0.722-727 test cohort, 0.653-0.667 validation), outperforming the tree (AUC 0.663 test cohort, 0.595 validation). These models identified 9%, 21%-23% and 41%-42% of admissions as 'high risk' using respective sensitivities of 25%, 50% and 75%. In the group lasso, approximately half of 'high-risk' patients also had abnormal glucose which reduced the DMT review cohort to 4.9%, 10.8% and 19.2% for sensitivities of 25%, 50% and 75%.
conclusionEUR prediction models facilitate targeted, timely DMT review. Regularised regression models offer a feasible, practical approach for identifying high-risk patients in resource-limited hospital settings. Combining model-identified risk with abnormal glucose refines patient selection, optimising resource allocation.
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.