A novel method to derive personalized minimum viable recommendations for type 2 diabetes prevention based on counterfactual explanations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing availability of artificial intelligence models for predicting type 2 diabetes, there is still a lack of personalized approaches to quantify minimum viable changes in biomarkers that may help reduce the individual risk of developing disease. The aim of this article is to develop a new method, based on counterfactual explanations, to generate personalized recommendations to reduce the one-year risk of type 2 diabetes. Ten routinely collected biomarkers extracted from Electronic Medical Records of 2791 patients at low risk and 2791 patients at high risk of type 2 diabetes were analyzed. Two regions characterizing the two classes of patients were estimated using a Support Vector Data Description classifier. Counterfactual explanations (i.e., minimal changes in input features able to change the risk class) were generated for patients at high risk and evaluated using performance metrics (availability, validity, actionability, similarity, and discriminative power) and a qualitative survey administered to seven expert clinicians. Results showed that, on average, the requested minimum viable changes implied a significant reduction of fasting blood sugar, systolic blood pressure, and triglycerides and a significant increase of high-density lipoprotein in patients at risk of diabetes. A significant reduction in body mass index was also recommended in most of the patients at risk, except in females without hypertension. In general, greater changes were recommended in hypertensive patients compared to non-hypertensive ones. The experts were overall satisfied with the proposed approach although in some cases the proposed recommendations were deemed insufficient to reduce the risk in a clinically meaningful way. Future research will focus on a larger set of biomarkers and different comorbidities, also incorporating clinical guidelines whenever possible. Development of additional mathematical and clinical validation approaches will also be of paramount importance.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".