MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414162834 · doi:10.2196/64979

Interpretable Machine Learning Model for Predicting and Assessing the Risk of Diabetic Nephropathy: Prediction Model Study

2025· article· en· W4414162834 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yili Wen, Zhiqiang Wan, Huiling Ren, Xu Wang, Weijie Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityMissing dataPredictive powerReceiver operating characteristicDiabetic nephropathyMedical recordSupport vector machineDiabetes mellitusNephropathy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Diabetic nephropathy (DN), a severe complication of diabetes, is characterized by proteinuria, hypertension, and progressive renal function decline, potentially leading to end-stage renal disease. The International Diabetes Federation projects that by 2045, 783 million people will have diabetes, with 30%-40% of them developing DN. Current diagnostic approaches lack sufficient sensitivity and specificity for early detection and diagnosis, underscoring the need for an accurate, interpretable predictive model to enable timely intervention, reduce cardiovascular risks, and optimize health care costs. Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning-based predictive model for DN in patients with type 2 diabetes, with a focus on achieving high predictive accuracy while ensuring transparency and interpretability through explainable artificial intelligence techniques, thereby supporting early diagnosis, risk assessment, and personalized clinical decision-making. Methods: Our retrospective cohort study investigated 1000 patients with type 2 diabetes using data from electronic medical records collected between 2015 and 2020. The study design incorporated a sample of 444 patients with DN and 556 without, focusing on demographics, clinical metrics such as blood pressure and glucose levels, and renal function markers. Data collection relied on electronic records, with missing values handled via multiple imputation and dataset balance achieved using Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE). In this study, advanced machine learning algorithms, namely Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), CatBoost, and Light Gradient-Boosting Machine (LightGBM), were used due to their robustness in handling complex datasets. Key metrics, including accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, specificity, and area under the curve, were used to provide a comprehensive assessment of model performance. In addition, explainable machine learning techniques, such as Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) and Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP), were applied to enhance the transparency and interpretability of the models, offering valuable insights into their decision-making processes. Results: XGBoost and LightGBM demonstrated superior performance, with XGBoost achieving the highest accuracy of 86.87%, a precision of 88.90%, a recall of 84.40%, an F1-score of 86.44%, and a specificity of 89.12%. LIME and SHAP analyses provided insights into the contribution of individual features to elucidate the decision-making processes of these models, identifying serum creatinine, albumin, and lipoproteins as significant predictors. Conclusions: The developed machine learning model not only provides a robust predictive tool for early diagnosis and risk assessment of DN but also ensures transparency and interpretability, crucial for clinical integration. By enabling early intervention and personalized treatment strategies, this model has the potential to improve patient outcomes and optimize health care resource usage.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.390 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207