ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Development and validation of an explainable machine learning model for differentiating diabetic nephropathy from diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic nephropathy (DN) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) are common microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and may require different diagnostic and management pathways. This study aimed to develop and validate an interpretable machine learning model based on routine laboratory data to differentiate prevalent DN from prevalent DR among hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: Data were collected from a large tertiary hospital in China and split into a training/internal validation cohort (DN: 2,309 cases; DR: 855 cases) and an independent held-out validation cohort (DN: 578 cases; DR: 214 cases). A total of 47 routinely available laboratory and demographic variables were extracted from electronic health records (EHRs). Seven machine learning algorithms were developed and compared, with recursive feature elimination (RFE) employed to identify the most informative subset of features and enhance model performance and interpretability. Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AP), while SHAP values were used to interpret feature importance and explain individual-level predictions. Results: The extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) classifier demonstrated the highest predictive performance among the seven machine learning algorithms evaluated. After selecting the top five features based on importance rankings, an explainable XGBoost model was constructed. This final model achieved strong apparent discrimination in both the training/internal validation cohort (AUC = 0.991, 95% CI: 0.989-0.994; AP = 0.979, 95% CI: 0.973-0.984) and the held-out validation cohort (AUC = 0.997, 95% CI: 0.996-0.999; AP = 0.993, 95% CI: 0.988-0.997). SHAP analysis further identified α-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase-MB, creatinine, urinary α1-microglobulin, and N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase as the most influential features contributing to complication risk prediction. Conclusions: An explainable machine learning model for predicting complications in patients with T2DM demonstrated high feasibility and effectiveness, indicating strong potential to support clinical management and improve patient outcomes. By incorporating SHAP analyses, the model addresses key concerns regarding transparency and clinical decision-making. These findings highlight the model's potential for real-world clinical implementation.
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.