MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402716590 · doi:10.1101/2024.09.19.24313155

Variation in First-line Type 2 Diabetes Treatment due to eGFR and Provider Preferences: A Novel Statistical Analysis

2024· preprint· en· W4402716590 on OpenAlexaff
Christina X. Ji, Saul Blecker, Michael Oberst, Ming‐Chieh Shih, Leora I. Horwitz, David Sontag

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsType 2 diabetesVariation (astronomy)Line (geometry)Diabetes mellitusDiabetes treatmentMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The decision between metformin and a DPP-4 inhibitor or sulfonylurea for first-line type 2 diabetes treatment relies on many factors, including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), history of heart failure, age, sex, and even provider preferences. This study evaluates variation in this treatment decision across two factors: eGFR and provider preferences. Research Design and Methods Using health insurance claims data, we defined a cohort based on observation prior to first-line treatment, availability of eGFR results, and no type 1 or gestational diabetes (n=10,643). We performed a chi-squared test to verify the association between eGFR and treatment. The cohort was then restricted to providers with at least 10 patients (n=2,271 patients). We conducted a novel statistical analysis to assess variation across providers. We fitted two models to predict treatment—one using only patient characteristics (age, eGFR, sex, history of heart failure, and treatment date) and another using both patient characteristics and provider-specific random effects. With these models, we performed a generalized likelihood ratio test (GLRT) to assess whether including provider-specific random effects improved fit. Results The chi-squared test confirmed significant association between treatment and eGFR (p < 0.0001). The GLRT in our novel statistical analysis found significant variation existed across providers even after accounting for patient characteristics (p < 0.0001). Visualizations of the observed treatment decisions and treatment policy models show that most of this variation across providers occurred at low eGFR levels, where the level of kidney damage at which metformin should be contraindicated is unclear. Conclusions While some variation in first-line type 2 diabetes treatment was associated with eGFR, some variation may be due to provider preferences that cannot be explained by treatment guidelines. Further studies can elucidate whether such variation across providers is appropriate. Our approach can be applied to other treatment decisions to improve diabetes management. Key Messages What is already known on this topic Guidelines for first-line type 2 diabetes treatments recommend metformin unless there are contraindications, such as kidney damage indicated by low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). What this study adds This study uses a health insurance claims dataset to verify that first-line treatment is significantly associated with eGFR levels. Then, we propose a novel statistical analysis to assess whether significant variation exists across providers even after accounting for patient age, eGFR, sex, history of heart failure, and treatment date. By fitting two random effects models—one with only patient characteristics and one that also utilizes provider-specific random effects—and comparing the likelihoods of the observed treatment decisions under the two models, we find that the treatment decisions can be explained significantly better when accounting for differences among providers in treatment preferences and eGFR considerations. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy Our results suggest future studies about whether the significant variation across providers found in our analysis is appropriate may help improve first-line type 2 diabetes treatment decisions, and our novel statistical approach can be applied to evaluate variation across providers throughout the diabetes management process.

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 score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207