Use and performance of machine learning models for type 2 diabetes prediction in clinical and community care settings: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of predictive modeling studies

Abstract

Objective Machine learning involves the use of algorithms without explicit instructions. Of late, machine learning models have been widely applied for the prediction of type 2 diabetes. However, no evidence synthesis of the performance of these prediction models of type 2 diabetes is available. We aim to identify machine learning prediction models for type 2 diabetes in clinical and community care settings and determine their predictive performance. Methods The systematic review of English language machine learning predictive modeling studies in 12 databases will be conducted. Studies predicting type 2 diabetes in predefined clinical or community settings are eligible. Standard CHARMS and TRIPOD guidelines will guide data extraction. Methodological quality will be assessed using a predefined risk of bias assessment tool. The extent of validation will be categorized by Reilly–Evans levels. Primary outcomes include model performance metrics of discrimination ability, calibration, and classification accuracy. Secondary outcomes include candidate predictors, algorithms used, level of validation, and intended use of models. The random-effects meta-analysis of c-indices will be performed to evaluate discrimination abilities. The c-indices will be pooled per prediction model, per model type, and per algorithm. Publication bias will be assessed through funnel plots and regression tests. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to estimate the effects of study quality and missing data on primary outcome. The sources of heterogeneity will be assessed through meta-regression. Subgroup analyses will be performed for primary outcomes. Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is required, as no primary or personal data are collected. Findings will be disseminated through scientific sessions and peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019130886

Predicting three-month fasting blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin changes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus based on multiple machine learning algorithms

“…Most studies tend to use machine learning algorithms such as decision trees, random forests, SVM, logistic regression, and neural networks to build T2DM prediction models, with AUC values ranging from 0.7 to 0.9 33 , 34 . Wang J et al adopted three commonly used machine learning algorithms (RF, SVM, and BP-ANN) combined with the elastic network (EN) to simulate and predict blood glucose status in China.…”

Assessing the potentiality of algorithms and artificial intelligence adoption to disrupt patient primary care with a safer and faster medication management: a systematic review protocol

“…The main implications of ML models concern various fields of medicine: that is, prediction in clinical and community care settings of chronic diseases, decision-making behaviours, clinical decision support and enhancement of efficiency of medical imaging. 10 In particular, electronic health records and electronic support systems based on algorithms could enhance the compliance with standards, avoid preventable errors and tailor the treatment on the basis of the specific characteristics and needs of the patients. 11 12 The aim of the study is to investigate the impact of AI algorithms on drug management in primary care settings.…”

Machine learning for diabetes clinical decision support: a review

“…They found supervised learning methods dominating the diabetes research efforts (reported in 85% of the studies considered) than unsupervised learning (15%) with SVM as the most popular classifier used. De Silva et al ( 2021 ) proposed a protocol for carrying out systematic review and meta-analyses of ML predictive modeling studies for T2D on the basis of their use and performance effectiveness at clinical as well as community levels. The authors state that most of the existing systematic reviews in the area of T2D have considered traditional modeling studies only, with very less attention given to ML studies.…”