Using machine learning to predict severe hypoglycaemia in hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To predict the risk of hypoglycaemia using machine-learning techniques in hospitalized patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized under general internal medicine (GIM) and cardiovascular surgery (CV) at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Toronto, Ontario. Three models were generated using supervised machine learning: least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression; gradient-boosted trees; and a recurrent neural network. Each model included baseline patient data and time-varying data. Natural-language processing was used to incorporate text data from physician and nursing notes. RESULTS: We included 8492 GIM admissions and 8044 CV admissions. Hypoglycaemia occurred in 16% of GIM admissions and 13% of CV admissions. The area under the curve for the models in the held-out validation set was approximately 0.80 on the GIM ward and 0.82 on the CV ward. When the threshold for hypoglycaemia was lowered to 2.9 mmol/L (52 mg/dL), similar results were observed. Among the patients at the highest decile of risk, the positive predictive value was approximately 50% and the sensitivity was 99%. CONCLUSION: Machine-learning approaches can accurately identify patients at high risk of hypoglycaemia in hospital. Future work will involve evaluating whether implementing this model with targeted clinical interventions can improve clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".