Machine Learning Approach to Decision Making for Insulin Initiation in Japanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (JDDM 58): Model Development and Validation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Applications of machine learning for the early detection of diseases for which a clear-cut diagnostic gold standard exists have been evaluated. However, little is known about the usefulness of machine learning approaches in the decision-making process for decisions such as insulin initiation by diabetes specialists for which no absolute standards exist in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to examine the ability of machine learning models to predict insulin initiation by specialists and whether the machine learning approach could support decision making by general physicians for insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Data from patients prescribed hypoglycemic agents from December 2009 to March 2015 were extracted from diabetes specialists' registries, resulting in a sample size of 4860 patients who had received initial monotherapy with either insulin (n=293) or noninsulin (n=4567). Neural network output was insulin initiation ranging from 0 to 1 with a cutoff of >0.5 for the dichotomous classification. Accuracy, recall, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated to compare the ability of machine learning models to make decisions regarding insulin initiation to the decision-making ability of logistic regression and general physicians. By comparing the decision-making ability of machine learning and logistic regression to that of general physicians, 7 cases were chosen based on patient information as the gold standard based on the agreement of 8 of the 9 specialists. RESULTS: The AUCs, accuracy, and recall of logistic regression were higher than those of machine learning (AUCs of 0.89-0.90 for logistic regression versus 0.67-0.74 for machine learning). When the examination was limited to cases receiving insulin, discrimination by machine learning was similar to that of logistic regression analysis (recall of 0.05-0.68 for logistic regression versus 0.11-0.52 for machine learning). Accuracies of logistic regression, a machine learning model (downsampling ratio of 1:8), and general physicians were 0.80, 0.70, and 0.66, respectively, for 43 randomly selected cases. For the 7 gold standard cases, the accuracies of logistic regression and the machine learning model were 1.00 and 0.86, respectively, with a downsampling ratio of 1:8, which were higher than the accuracy of general physicians (ie, 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no superior performance of machine learning over logistic regression, machine learning had higher accuracy in prediction of insulin initiation than general physicians, defined by diabetes specialists' choice of the gold standard. Further study is needed before the use of machine learning-based decision support systems for insulin initiation can be incorporated into clinical practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».