Ensemble machine learning reveals key features for diabetes duration from electronic health records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes is a metabolic disorder that affects more than 420 million of people worldwide, and it is caused by the presence of a high level of sugar in blood for a long period. Diabetes can have serious long-term health consequences, such as cardiovascular diseases, strokes, chronic kidney diseases, foot ulcers, retinopathy, and others. Even if common, this disease is uneasy to spot, because it often comes with no symptoms. Especially for diabetes type 2, that happens mainly in the adults, knowing how long the diabetes has been present for a patient can have a strong impact on the treatment they can receive. This information, although pivotal, might be absent: for some patients, in fact, the year when they received the diabetes diagnosis might be well-known, but the year of the disease unset might be unknown. In this context, machine learning applied to electronic health records can be an effective tool to predict the past duration of diabetes for a patient. In this study, we applied a regression analysis based on several computational intelligence methods to a dataset of electronic health records of 73 patients with diabetes type 1 with 20 variables and another dataset of records of 400 patients of diabetes type 2 with 49 variables. Among the algorithms applied, Random Forests was able to outperform the other ones and to efficiently predict diabetes duration for both the cohorts, with the regression performances measured through the coefficient of determination R2. Afterwards, we applied the same method for feature ranking, and we detected the most relevant factors of the clinical records correlated with past diabetes duration: age, insulin intake, and body-mass index. Our study discoveries can have profound impact on clinical practice: when the information about the duration of diabetes of patient is missing, medical doctors can use our tool and focus on age, insulin intake, and body-mass index to infer this important aspect. Regarding limitations, unfortunately we were unable to find additional dataset of EHRs of patients with diabetes having the same variables of the two analyzed here, so we could not verify our findings on a validation cohort.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".