Risk Stratification for Early Detection of Diabetes and Hypertension in Resource-Limited Settings: Machine Learning Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impending scale up of noncommunicable disease screening programs in low- and middle-income countries coupled with limited health resources require that such programs be as accurate as possible at identifying patients at high risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop machine learning-based risk stratification algorithms for diabetes and hypertension that are tailored for the at-risk population served by community-based screening programs in low-resource settings. METHODS: We trained and tested our models by using data from 2278 patients collected by community health workers through door-to-door and camp-based screenings in the urban slums of Hyderabad, India between July 14, 2015 and April 21, 2018. We determined the best models for predicting short-term (2-month) risk of diabetes and hypertension (a model for diabetes and a model for hypertension) and compared these models to previously developed risk scores from the United States and the United Kingdom by using prediction accuracy as characterized by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the number of false negatives. RESULTS: We found that models based on random forest had the highest prediction accuracy for both diseases and were able to outperform the US and UK risk scores in terms of AUC by 35.5% for diabetes (improvement of 0.239 from 0.671 to 0.910) and 13.5% for hypertension (improvement of 0.094 from 0.698 to 0.792). For a fixed screening specificity of 0.9, the random forest model was able to reduce the expected number of false negatives by 620 patients per 1000 screenings for diabetes and 220 patients per 1000 screenings for hypertension. This improvement reduces the cost of incorrect risk stratification by US $1.99 (or 35%) per screening for diabetes and US $1.60 (or 21%) per screening for hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: In the next decade, health systems in many countries are planning to spend significant resources on noncommunicable disease screening programs and our study demonstrates that machine learning models can be leveraged by these programs to effectively utilize limited resources by improving risk stratification.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".