Longitudinal Risk Prediction of Chronic Kidney Disease in Diabetic Patients using Temporal-Enhanced Gradient Boosting Machine: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence-enabled electronic health record (EHR) analysis can revolutionize medical practice from the diagnosis and prediction of complex diseases to making recommendations in patient care, especially for chronic conditions such as chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is one of the most frequent complications in patients with diabetes and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: The longitudinal prediction of health outcomes requires effective representation of temporal data in the EHR. In this study, we proposed a novel temporal-enhanced gradient boosting machine (GBM) model that dynamically updates and ensembles learners based on new events in patient timelines to improve the prediction accuracy of CKD among patients with diabetes. METHODS: Using a broad spectrum of deidentified EHR data on a retrospective cohort of 14,039 adult patients with type 2 diabetes and GBM as the base learner, we validated our proposed Landmark-Boosting model against three state-of-the-art temporal models for rolling predictions of 1-year CKD risk. RESULTS: The proposed model uniformly outperformed other models, achieving an area under receiver operating curve of 0.83 (95% CI 0.76-0.85), 0.78 (95% CI 0.75-0.82), and 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.86) in predicting CKD risk with automatic accumulation of new data in later years (years 2, 3, and 4 since diabetes mellitus onset, respectively). The Landmark-Boosting model also maintained the best calibration across moderate- and high-risk groups and over time. The experimental results demonstrated that the proposed temporal model can not only accurately predict 1-year CKD risk but also improve performance over time with additionally accumulated data, which is essential for clinical use to improve renal management of patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of temporal information in EHR data can significantly improve predictive model performance and will particularly benefit patients who follow-up with their physicians as recommended.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".