MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378172515 · doi:10.2196/47592

An “All-Data-on-Hand” Deep Learning Model to Predict Hospitalization for Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: Development and Validation Study

2023· article· en· W4378172515 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David D. Williams, Diana Ferro, Colin Mullaney, Lydia Skrabonja, Mitchell S Barnes, Susana R. Patton, Brent Lockee, Erin M. Tallon, Craig A. Vandervelden, Cintya Schweisberger, Sanjeev N. Mehta, Ryan McDonough, Marcus Lind, Leonard DʼAvolio, Mark A. Clements

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Diabetes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
KeywordsDiabetic ketoacidosisMedicineType 1 diabetesCohortPediatricsAnthropometryDiabetes mellitusDemographicsType 2 diabetesReceiver operating characteristicEmergency medicineDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although prior research has identified multiple risk factors for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), clinicians continue to lack clinic-ready models to predict dangerous and costly episodes of DKA. We asked whether we could apply deep learning, specifically the use of a long short-term memory (LSTM) model, to accurately predict the 180-day risk of DKA-related hospitalization for youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the development of an LSTM model to predict the 180-day risk of DKA-related hospitalization for youth with T1D. METHODS: We used 17 consecutive calendar quarters of clinical data (January 10, 2016, to March 18, 2020) for 1745 youths aged 8 to 18 years with T1D from a pediatric diabetes clinic network in the Midwestern United States. The input data included demographics, discrete clinical observations (laboratory results, vital signs, anthropometric measures, diagnosis, and procedure codes), medications, visit counts by type of encounter, number of historic DKA episodes, number of days since last DKA admission, patient-reported outcomes (answers to clinic intake questions), and data features derived from diabetes- and nondiabetes-related clinical notes via natural language processing. We trained the model using input data from quarters 1 to 7 (n=1377), validated it using input from quarters 3 to 9 in a partial out-of-sample (OOS-P; n=1505) cohort, and further validated it in a full out-of-sample (OOS-F; n=354) cohort with input from quarters 10 to 15. RESULTS: DKA admissions occurred at a rate of 5% per 180-days in both out-of-sample cohorts. In the OOS-P and OOS-F cohorts, the median age was 13.7 (IQR 11.3-15.8) years and 13.1 (IQR 10.7-15.5) years; median glycated hemoglobin levels at enrollment were 8.6% (IQR 7.6%-9.8%) and 8.1% (IQR 6.9%-9.5%); recall was 33% (26/80) and 50% (9/18) for the top-ranked 5% of youth with T1D; and 14.15% (213/1505) and 12.7% (45/354) had prior DKA admissions (after the T1D diagnosis), respectively. For lists rank ordered by the probability of hospitalization, precision increased from 33% to 56% to 100% for positions 1 to 80, 1 to 25, and 1 to 10 in the OOS-P cohort and from 50% to 60% to 80% for positions 1 to 18, 1 to 10, and 1 to 5 in the OOS-F cohort, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed LSTM model for predicting 180-day DKA-related hospitalization was valid in this sample. Future research should evaluate model validity in multiple populations and settings to account for health inequities that may be present in different segments of the population (eg, racially or socioeconomically diverse cohorts). Rank ordering youth by probability of DKA-related hospitalization will allow clinics to identify the most at-risk youth. The clinical implication of this is that clinics may then create and evaluate novel preventive interventions based on available resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR DiabetesSame topicDiabetes and associated disordersFrench-language works237,207