A Markov decision process for modeling adverse drug reactions in medication treatment of type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes has an increasing prevalence and high cost of treatment. The goal of type 2 diabetes treatment is to control patients' blood glucose level by pharmacological interventions and to prevent adverse disease-related complications. Therefore, it is important to optimize the medication treatment plans for type 2 diabetes patients to enhance the quality of their lives and to decrease the economic burden of this chronic disease. Since the treatment of type 2 diabetes relies on medication, it is vital to consider adverse drug reactions. Adverse drug reaction is undesired harmful reactions that may result from some certain medications. Therefore, a Markov decision process is developed in this article to model the medication treatment of type 2 diabetes, considering the possibility of adverse drug reaction occurring adverse drug reaction. The optimal policy of the proposed Markov decision process model is compared with clinical guidelines and existing models in the literature. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to address the manner in which model behavior depends on model parameterization and then therapeutic insights are obtained based on the results. The satisfying results show that the model has the capability to offer an optimal treatment policy with an acceptable expected quality of life by utilizing fewer medications and provide significant implications in endocrinology and metabolism applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".