Prediction of progression from pre‐diabetes to diabetes: Development and validation of a machine learning model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Identification, a priori, of those at high risk of progression from pre-diabetes to diabetes may enable targeted delivery of interventional programmes while avoiding the burden of prevention and treatment in those at low risk. We studied whether the use of a machine-learning model can improve the prediction of incident diabetes utilizing patient data from electronic medical records. METHODS: A machine-learning model predicting the progression from pre-diabetes to diabetes was developed using a gradient boosted trees model. The model was trained on data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database cohort, internally validated on THIN data not used for training, and externally validated on the Canadian AppleTree and the Israeli Maccabi Health Services (MHS) data sets. The model's predictive ability was compared with that of a logistic-regression model within each data set. RESULTS: A cohort of 852 454 individuals with pre-diabetes (glucose ≥ 100 mg/dL and/or HbA1c ≥ 5.7) was used for model training including 4.9 million time points using 900 features. The full model was eventually implemented using 69 variables, generated from 11 basic signals. The machine-learning model demonstrated superiority over the logistic-regression model, which was maintained at all sensitivity levels - comparing AUC [95% CI] between the models; in the THIN data set (0.865 [0.860,0.869] vs 0.778 [0.773,0.784] P < .05), the AppleTree data set (0.907 [0.896, 0.919] vs 0.880 [0.867, 0.894] P < .05) and the MHS data set (0.925 [0.923, 0.927] vs 0.876 [0.872, 0.879] P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Machine-learning models preserve their performance across populations in diabetes prediction, and can be integrated into large clinical systems, leading to judicious selection of persons for interventional programmes.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".