Cited by 17Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementDiabetes Treatment and ManagementMachine Learning in Healthcare

Using machine learning to identify diabetes patients with canagliflozin prescriptions at high‐risk of lower extremity amputation using real‐world data

Yang, Lanting, Gabriel, Nico, Hernandez, Inmaculada, Winterstein, Almut G., Guo, Jingchuan·2021·Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Abstract

Aims Canagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor indicated for lowering glucose, has been increasingly used in diabetes patients because of its beneficial effects on cardiovascular and renal outcomes. However, clinical trials have documented an increased risk of lower extremity amputations (LEA) associated with canagliflozin. We applied machine learning methods to predict LEA among diabetes patients treated with canagliflozin. Methods Using claims data from a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries, we identified 13 904 diabetes individuals initiating canagliflozin between April 2013 and December 2016. The samples were randomly and equally split into training and testing sets. We identified 41 predictor candidates using information from the year prior to canagliflozin initiation, and applied four machine learning approaches (elastic net, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator [LASSO], gradient boosting machine and random forests) to predict LEA risk after canagliflozin initiation. Results The incidence rate of LEA was 0.57% over a median 1.5 years follow-up. LASSO produced the best prediction, yielding a C-statistic of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.86). Among individuals categorized in the top 5% of the risk score, the actual incidence rate of LEA was 3.74%. Among the 16 factors selected by LASSO, history of LEA [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 33.6 (13.8, 81.9)] and loop diuretic use [aOR: 3.6 (1.8,7.3)] had the strongest associations with LEA incidence. Conclus…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pds.5206

Cites

3 of 3 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
Yang, L., Gabriel, N., Hernandez, I., Winterstein, A. G., & Guo, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Yang, Lanting
Venue
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-02
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
644-651
ISSN
  • 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1557
OpenAlex
W3129698616
Cited by
17
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
canagliflozin, lower limb amputation, SGLT2 inhibitors, diabetes mellitus, risk prediction, loop diuretics, adverse drug reactions, Medicare beneficiaries, real-world data
MeSH terms
Canagliflozin, Machine Learning, Aged, Amputation, Surgical, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Medicare, Humans, Risk Factors, United States, Lower Extremity, Prescriptions

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