Cited by 122Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareDiabetes Management and Research

Predicting adverse outcomes due to diabetes complications with machine learning using administrative health data

Open access
Ravaut, Mathieu, Sadeghi, Hamed, Leung, Kin Kwan, Volkovs, Maksims, Kornas, Kathy, Harish, Vinyas, Watson, Tristan, Lewis, Gary F. +3 more·2021·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Across jurisdictions, government and health insurance providers hold a large amount of data from patient interactions with the healthcare system. We aimed to develop a machine learning-based model for predicting adverse outcomes due to diabetes complications using administrative health data from the single-payer health system in Ontario, Canada. A Gradient Boosting Decision Tree model was trained on data from 1,029,366 patients, validated on 272,864 patients, and tested on 265,406 patients. Discrimination was assessed using the AUC statistic and calibration was assessed visually using calibration plots overall and across population subgroups. Our model predicting three-year risk of adverse outcomes due to diabetes complications (hyper/hypoglycemia, tissue infection, retinopathy, cardiovascular events, amputation) included 700 features from multiple diverse data sources and had strong discrimination (average test AUC = 77.7, range 77.7–77.9). Through the design and validation of a high-performance model to predict diabetes complications adverse outcomes at the population level, we demonstrate the potential of machine learning and administrative health data to inform health planning and healthcare resource allocation for diabetes management.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-021-00394-8

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [76]Bojer, C. & Meldgaard, J. Learnings from Kaggle’s Forecasting Competitions. arXiv, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2009/2009.07701.pdf (2020).
  2. [81]Vaswani, A. et al. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (eds. Guyon, I. et al.) 5998–6008 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2017).
  3. [86]Akbani, R., Kwek, S. & Japkowicz, N. in Machine Learning: ECML 39–50 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ravaut, M., Sadeghi, H., Leung, K. K., Volkovs, M., Kornas, K., Harish, V., Watson, T., Lewis, G. F., Weisman, A., Poutanen, T., & Rosella, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Rosella, Laura
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2021-02-12
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
24-24
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3127218785
Cited by
121
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 7
FWCI
6.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Canada Research Chairs
  • Gouvernement du Canada | Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
diabetes complications, adverse outcome prediction, administrative health data, gradient boosting decision tree, tissue infection, diabetic retinopathy, cardiovascular events, amputation, single-payer health care, Ontario, healthcare resource allocation, health planning

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