Risk of Progression and Costs of Care for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression is associated with a significant incremental economic burden. Previous work has demonstrated high accuracy of the laboratory-based machine learning model, Klinrisk, in predicting the risk of CKD progression. We sought to use the Klinrisk model to evaluate the association of risk of CKD progression with healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of care in adults with type 2 diabetes and CKD. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included 413,177 eligible patients from Optum's electronic health records database (1/1/2007-9/30/2022). Patients were classified into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups based on their 2-year risk of CKD progression as predicted by the Klinrisk model. All-cause HRU and medical costs during the 1 year after CKD were estimated for each group. RESULTS: Of the 413,177 patients included, 110,399 (26.7%) were classified as low-risk of CKD progression, 253,188 (61.3%) as medium-risk, and 49,590 (12.0%) as high-risk. The observed risk of CKD progression at 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years was 18.6%, 36.5%, and 54.1% for high-risk patients, 3.7%, 11.7%, and 26.4% for medium-risk patients, and 1.5%, 5.7%, and 15.8% for low-risk patients, which were similar to the predicted risks of CKD progression. High-risk patients had higher HRU and more than 2-3 times higher costs than lower-risk patients. Inpatient costs were the major cost driver for high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: The Klinrisk model accurately identified patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD requiring the most healthcare resources. Such tools can support the identification and targeting of high-risk patients for interventions that may lead to a more cost-effective model of care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".