2022
DOI: 10.1007/s40618-022-01919-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development and validation of a risk score for diabetic kidney disease prediction in type 2 diabetes patients: a machine learning approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
2

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
5
2
Order By: Relevance
“…(ACR, HbA1c, hypertension, diabetic duration, eGFR and cardiovascular disease) using recursive feature elimination with cross-validation and develop a risk model with a AUC of 0.755 for predicting renal dysfunction using multivariate LR algorithm. By comparison, the AUC in the present study was a little higher than that in the study of Hosseini Sarkhosh et al (23), although both of the two studies had six predictive features. Perhaps, the most likely reasons for the different performance of the prediction models in the two studies were the study population and the predictive variables.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…(ACR, HbA1c, hypertension, diabetic duration, eGFR and cardiovascular disease) using recursive feature elimination with cross-validation and develop a risk model with a AUC of 0.755 for predicting renal dysfunction using multivariate LR algorithm. By comparison, the AUC in the present study was a little higher than that in the study of Hosseini Sarkhosh et al (23), although both of the two studies had six predictive features. Perhaps, the most likely reasons for the different performance of the prediction models in the two studies were the study population and the predictive variables.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 80%
“…In the present study, six predictive features were determined by LASSO regression, and LR algorithms was performed to establish the prediction model for the occurrence of renal dysfunction. The study by Hosseini Sarkhosh et al (23) determined six predictors The correlations between the potential continuous variables for the univariate analysis (p ≤ 0.1). HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; UA, uric acid; ACR, albumin to creatinine ratio; URBP/Cr, retinol-binding protein to creatinine ratio; UTRF/Cr, transferrin to creatinine ratio; UORM/Cr, alpha-1-acidglycoprotein to creatinine ratio; A1MCR, alpha-1-microglobulin to creatinine ratio.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We identified 74 studies that met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 66 studies presented the original version of the ML model, 10-75 and an additional eight studies externally validated these models. 76-…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar observations were made in studies that kept other model characteristics constant while only varying their machine learning technique. 32,44,60,62,67,69,71,73 For example, in the case of DR, the study by Zhao et al 62 compared five ML techniques: XGBoost (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.91 [0.9–0.93]), RF (AUC: 0.87 [0.86–0.89]), Logistic Regression (AUC: 0.81 [0.79–0.83]), SVM (AUC: 0.80 [0.78–0.82]), and K-NN (AUC: 0.63 [0.6–0.66]). In the case of DKD, the study by Dong et al 60 compared seven ML techniques: LightGBM (AUC: 0.82 [0.75–0.88]), AdaBoost (AUC: 0.81 [0.74–0.87]), Neural Network (AUC: 0.80 [0.73–0.87]), Logistic Regression (AUC: 0.80 [0.73–0.87]), XGBoost (AUC: 0.78 [0.71–0.85]), Support Vector Machine (AUC: 0.79 [0.72–0.86]), and DT (AUC: 0.58 [0.5–0.67]).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation