Cited by 9Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Treatment and Management

Machine learning based study of longitudinal HbA1c trends and their association with all-cause mortality: analyses from a national diabetes registry

Cahn, Avivit, Zuker, Inbar, Eilenberg, Roni, Uziel, Moshe, Tsadok, Meytal Avgil, Raz, Itamar, Lutski, Miri·2022·Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The association of long-term HbA1c variability with mortality has been previously suggested. However, the significance of HbA1c variability and trends in different age and HbA1c categories is unclear. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data on patients with diabetes listed in the Israeli National Diabetes Registry during years 2012-2016 (observation period) were collected. Patients with >4 HbA1c measurements, type 1 diabetes, eGFR < 30mg/ml/min, persistent HbA1c < 6% or malignancy were excluded. Utilizing machine learning methods, patients were classified into clusters according to their HbA1c trend (increasing, stable, decreasing). Mortality risk during 2017-2019 was calculated in subgroups defined by age (35-54, 55-69, 70-89 years) and last HbA1c (≤7% and >7%) at end of observation period. Models were adjusted for demographic, clinical and laboratory measurements including HbA1c, standard deviation (SD) of HbA1c and HbA1c trend. RESULTS: This historical cohort study included 293,314 patients. Increased HbA1c variability (high SD) during the observation period was an independent predictor of mortality in patients aged more than 55 years (p < 0.01). The HbA1c trend was another independent predictor of mortality. Patients with a decreasing versus stable HbA1c trend had a greater mortality risk; this association persisted in all age groups in patients with HbA1c > 7% at the end of the observation period (p = 0.02 in age 35-54; p < 0.01 in aged >55). Patients with an increasing versus stable HbA1c trend had a greater mortality risk only in the elderly group (>70), yet in both HbA1c categories (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c variability and trend are important determinants of mortality risk and should be considered when adjusting glycaemic targets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/dmrr.3485

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cahn, A., Zuker, I., Eilenberg, R., Uziel, M., Tsadok, M. A., Raz, I., & Lutski, M.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • Israel Center for Disease Control Ministry of Health Ramat Gan Israel
  • Israel Ministry of Health (IL)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
Venue
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-07-13
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
e3485-e3485
ISSN
  • 1520-7552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-7560
OpenAlex
W3182093666
Cited by
9
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
HbA1c variability, HbA1c trends, all-cause mortality, diabetes mellitus, glycemic control, glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes, age differences in mortality risk
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Middle Aged, Registries, Risk Factors, Cohort Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review