MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417220091 · doi:10.2196/82635

Predictors of Glycemic Response to Sulfonylurea Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Over 12 Months: Comparative Analysis of Linear Regression and Machine Learning Models

2025· article· en· W4417220091 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shilpa Garg, Robert R. Kitchen, Ramneek Gupta, Emanuele Trucco, Ewan R. Pearson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Diabetes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovo Nordisk
KeywordsGlycemicType 2 diabetesLinear modelLinear regressionRegressionLogistic regressionRegression analysisGliclazide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sulfonylureas are commonly prescribed for managing type 2 diabetes, yet treatment responses vary significantly among individuals. Although advances in machine learning (ML) may enhance predictive capabilities compared to traditional statistical methods, their practical utility in real-world clinical environments remains uncertain. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the predictive performance of linear regression models with several ML approaches for predicting glycemic response to sulfonylurea therapy using routine clinical data, and to assess model interpretability using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) analysis as a secondary analysis. Methods: A cohort of 7557 individuals with type 2 diabetes who initiated sulfonylurea therapy was analyzed, with all patients followed for 1 year. Linear and logistic regression models were used as baseline comparisons. A range of ML models was trained to predict the continuous change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and the achievement of HbA1c <58 mmol/mol at follow-up. These models included random forest, extreme gradient boosting, support vector machines, a conventional feedforward neural network, and Bayesian additive regression trees. Model performance was assessed using standard metrics including R² and root mean squared error for regression tasks and area under the receiver operating characteristic for classification. In a subset of 2361 patients, nonfasting connecting peptide (C-peptide) was analyzed as a proxy for β-cell function. SHAP analysis was performed to identify and compare key predictors driving model performance across methods. Results: All models exhibited similar performance, with no significant advantages of ML techniques over linear regression. For continuous outcomes, Bayesian additive regression trees demonstrated the highest R² (0.445) and lowest root mean squared error (0.105), though the differences among models were minimal. For the binary outcome, extreme gradient boosting achieved the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.712), with CIs overlapping those of other models. Across all models, baseline HbA1c was consistently the primary predictor, explaining the majority of the variance. SHAP analyses confirmed that baseline HbA1c, age, BMI, and sex were the most influential predictors. Sensitivity analyses and hyperparameter tuning did not significantly improve model performance. In the C-peptide subset, higher C-peptide levels were associated with greater glycemic improvement (β=-3.2 mmol/mol per log(C-peptide); P<.001). Conclusions: In this large, population-based cohort, ML models did not outperform traditional regression for predicting glycemic response to sulfonylureas. These findings suggest that limited gains from ML likely reflect an absence of strong nonlinear or high-order interactions in routine clinical data and that available features may not capture sufficient biological heterogeneity for complex models to confer added benefit. The inclusion of a C-peptide subset provides additional mechanistic insight by linking preserved β-cell function with treatment response.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR DiabetesSame topicDiabetes and associated disordersFrench-language works237,207