ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Exploring the potential of XAI methods in generating clinically meaningful explanations for glycemia prediction in diabetes patients.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. 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.
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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeGlycemic emergencies are a frequent cause of hospital admissions and can lead to severe complications, particularly in older or medically complex patients. Anticipating these events is essential for timely intervention and personalized care. This study aimed to identify patients at risk of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia using routinely collected data from emergency department of 11 hospitals in Spain.
methodsA comprehensive modeling framework was designed to identify glycemic events from clinical data. Multiple supervised learning algorithms were trained and validated using routinely collected patient variables. Model explainability was ensured through the integration of XAI methods, which quantified the contribution of individual clinical features to prediction outcomes. This approach enabled transparent model behavior, supporting clinical understanding and facilitating patient risk stratification.
resultsThe developed models achieved predictive accuracies between 70% and 74%. Explainability analyses revealed distinct glycemic risk patterns: patients aged 87 years and above were predominantly hypoglycemic, while among younger individuals, those with a body temperature exceeding 36 [Formula: see text]C, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) (creatinine [Formula: see text]), and platelet counts below [Formula: see text] were more likely to be hyperglycemic, whereas others tended toward hypoglycemia.
conclusionsThese results highlight the predictive value of age, thermoregulation, renal function, and hematologic parameters in assessing glycemic risk. The combination of machine learning and explainability provides interpretable, actionable insights to support early risk stratification and improve outcomes in diabetes care.
trial registrationThis retrospective study was approved by the Comité de Ética de la Investigación con medicamentos (CEIm) of Hospital Clínico San Carlos (Madrid, Spain) (Approval code: 19/332-E). The requirement for informed consent was waived. All procedures followed institutional ethics standards, the Declaration of Helsinki, and applicable national regulations. Retrospectively registered.
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.