MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4395665411 · doi:10.2196/54373

Proactive Identification of Patients with Diabetes at Risk of Uncontrolled Outcomes during a Diabetes Management Program: Conceptualization and Development Study Using Machine Learning

2024· article· en· W4395665411 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arash Khalilnejad, Ruo-Ting Sun, Tejaswi Kompala, Stefanie Painter, Roberta James, Yajuan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOnboardingMachine learningMedicineDiabetes managementArtificial intelligenceF1 scoreDiabetes mellitusRecallInterpretabilityComputer scienceType 2 diabetesPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The growth in the capabilities of telehealth have made it possible to identify individuals with a higher risk of uncontrolled diabetes and provide them with targeted support and resources to help them manage their condition. Thus, predictive modeling has emerged as a valuable tool for the advancement of diabetes management. Objective This study aimed to conceptualize and develop a novel machine learning (ML) approach to proactively identify participants enrolled in a remote diabetes monitoring program (RDMP) who were at risk of uncontrolled diabetes at 12 months in the program. Methods Registry data from the Livongo for Diabetes RDMP were used to design separate dynamic predictive ML models to predict participant outcomes at each monthly checkpoint of the participants’ program journey (month-n models) from the first day of onboarding (month-0 model) up to the 11th month (month-11 model). A participant’s program journey began upon onboarding into the RDMP and monitoring their own blood glucose (BG) levels through the RDMP-provided BG meter. Each participant passed through 12 predicative models through their first year enrolled in the RDMP. Four categories of participant attributes (ie, survey data, BG data, medication fills, and health signals) were used for feature construction. The models were trained using the light gradient boosting machine and underwent hyperparameter tuning. The performance of the models was evaluated using standard metrics, including precision, recall, specificity, the area under the curve, the F1-score, and accuracy. Results The ML models exhibited strong performance, accurately identifying observable at-risk participants, with recall ranging from 70% to 94% and precision from 40% to 88% across the 12-month program journey. Unobservable at-risk participants also showed promising performance, with recall ranging from 61% to 82% and precision from 42% to 61%. Overall, model performance improved as participants progressed through their program journey, demonstrating the importance of engagement data in predicting long-term clinical outcomes. Conclusions This study explored the Livongo for Diabetes RDMP participants’ temporal and static attributes, identification of diabetes management patterns and characteristics, and their relationship to predict diabetes management outcomes. Proactive targeting ML models accurately identified participants at risk of uncontrolled diabetes with a high level of precision that was generalizable through future years within the RDMP. The ability to identify participants who are at risk at various time points throughout the program journey allows for personalized interventions to improve outcomes. This approach offers significant advancements in the feasibility of large-scale implementation in remote monitoring programs and can help prevent uncontrolled glycemic levels and diabetes-related complications. Future research should include the impact of significant changes that can affect a participant’s diabetes management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.404 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→