Machine Learning Approaches to Predict Risks of Diabetic Complications and Poor Glycemic Control in Nonadherent Type 2 Diabetes

Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of machine learning algorithms in predicting risks of complications and poor glycemic control in nonadherent type 2 diabetes (T2D).Materials and Methods: This study was a real-world study of the complications and blood glucose prognosis of nonadherent T2D patients. Data of inpatients in Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital from January 2010 to December 2015 were collected. The T2D patients who had neither been monitored for glycosylated hemoglobin A nor had changed their hyperglycemia treatment regimens within the last 12 months were the object of this study. Seven types of machine learning algorithms were used to develop 18 prediction models. The predictive performance was mainly assessed using the area under the curve of the testing set.Results: Of 800 T2D patients, 165 (20.6%) met the inclusion criteria, of which 129 (78.2%) had poor glycemic control (defined as glycosylated hemoglobin A ≥7%). The highest area under the curves of the testing set for diabetic nephropathy, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, diabetic angiopathy, diabetic eye disease, and glycosylated hemoglobin A were 0.902 ± 0.040, 0.859 ± 0.050, 0.889 ± 0.059, 0.832 ± 0.086, and 0.825 ± 0.092, respectively.Conclusion: Both univariate analysis and machine learning methods reached the same conclusion. The duration of T2D and the duration of unadjusted hypoglycemic treatment were the key risk factors of diabetic complications, and the number of hypoglycemic drugs was the key risk factor of glycemic control of nonadherent T2D. This was the first study to use machine learning algorithms to explore the potential adverse outcomes of nonadherent T2D. The performances of the final prediction models we developed were acceptable; our prediction performances outperformed most other previous studies in most evaluation measures. Those models have potential clinical applicability in improving T2D care

Developing clinical prediction models for diabetes classification and progression

Patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes have very different treatment and care requirements. Overlapping phenotypes and lack of clear classification guidelines make it difficult for clinicians to differentiate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes at diagnosis. The rate of glycaemic deterioration is highly variable in patients with type 2 diabetes but there is no single test to accurately identify which patients will progress rapidly to requiring insulin therapy. Incorrect treatment and care decisions in diabetes can have life-threatening consequences. The aim of this thesis is to develop clinical prediction models that can be incorporated into routine clinical practice to assist clinicians with the classification and care of patient diagnosed with diabetes. We addressed the problem first by integrating features previously associated with classification of type 1 and type 2 diabetes to develop a diagnostic model using logistic regression to identify, at diagnosis, patients with type 1 diabetes. The high performance achieved by this model was comparable to that of machine learning algorithms. In patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, we found that patients who were GADA positive and had genetic susceptibility to type 1 diabetes progressed more rapidly to requiring insulin therapy. We built upon this finding to develop a prognostic model integrating predictive features of glycaemic deterioration to predict early insulin requirement in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The three main findings of this thesis have the potential to change the way that patients with diabetes are managed in clinical practice. Use of the diagnostic model developed to identify patients with type 1 diabetes has the potential to reduce misclassification. Classifying patients according to the model has the benefit of being more akin to the treatment needs of the patient rather than the aetiopathological definitions used in current clinical guidelines. The design of the model lends itself to implementing a triage-based approach to diabetes subtype diagnosis. Our second main finding alters the clinical implications of a positive GADA test in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. For identifying patients likely to progress rapidly to insulin, genetic testing is only beneficial in patients who test positive for GADA. In clinical practice, a two-step screening process could be implemented - only patients who test positive for GADA in the first step would go on for genetic testing. The prognostic model can be used in clinical practice to predict a patient’s rate of glycaemic deterioration leading to a requirement for insulin. The availability of this data will enable clinical practices to more effectively manage their patient lists, prioritising more intensive follow up for those patients who are at high risk of rapid progression. Patients are likely to benefit from tailored treatment. Another key clinical use of the prognostic model is the identification of patients who would benefit most from GADA testing saving both inconvenience to the patient and a cost-benefit to the health service