ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Markov Decision Process-Based Personalized Follow-Up Planning for Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersonalized follow-up for type 2 diabetes may improve the alignment between monitoring intensity and patient needs, but operational approaches that jointly consider follow-up timing, modality, expected health benefits, and resource use remain limited.
objectiveThis study develops a Markov decision process (MDP) framework for personalized follow-up planning, externally validates complementary risk-prediction models, and estimates the projected 12-month cost-effectiveness of model-generated follow-up strategies.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed longitudinal data from 41,398 patients with type 2 diabetes managed in 10 community health centers in Nanjing, China, over the 2015-2024 calendar period. An independent Shanghai cohort included 25,506 patients from 10 communities. We developed least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO)-Cox models to predict 1-year incident complication and mortality risk and evaluated discrimination in Shanghai. Separately, a 12-cycle finite-horizon MDP used observed action-conditional state transitions with prespecified utility, cost, access, and willingness-to-pay parameters to generate personalized follow-up policies.
resultsFor an example patient initially without recorded complications (S0), the personalized policy increased annual effectiveness by 0.48 quality-adjusted life days (QALDs; 0.0013 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) and cost by 33.46 CNY (1 CNY=US $0.15), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 25,499 CNY/QALY. In a heterogeneous simulated cohort of 1000 patients initialized in S0, mean annual effectiveness increased from 313.52 to 314.05 QALDs (0.85896 to 0.86041 QALYs), and mean annual cost increased by 24.67 CNY, yielding an ICER of 17,016 CNY/QALY. External C-indices were 0.778 for incident complications and 0.812 for mortality. Deterministic sensitivity analyses did not materially alter the cost-effectiveness conclusion.
conclusionsThe MDP framework generated individualized 12-month follow-up policies with small projected QALY gains at modest incremental program cost, while the complementary risk models demonstrated external discrimination in an independent cohort. As action-conditional transitions were estimated from observational records and several economic parameters were prespecified, the modeled differences represent projections rather than causal treatment effects and require prospective implementation and economic validation before clinical adoption.
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.