The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Machine Learning Methods to Predict Diabetes Complications
Open accessAbstract
One of the areas where Artificial Intelligence is having more impact is machine learning, which develops algorithms able to learn patterns and decision rules from data. Machine learning algorithms have been embedded into data mining pipelines, which can combine them with classical statistical strategies, to extract knowledge from data. Within the EU-funded MOSAIC project, a data mining pipeline has been used to derive a set of predictive models of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) complications based on electronic health record data of nearly one thousand patients. Such pipeline comprises clinical center profiling, predictive model targeting, predictive model construction and model validation. After having dealt with missing data by means of random forest (RF) and having applied suitable strategies to handle class imbalance, we have used Logistic Regression with stepwise feature selection to predict the onset of retinopathy, neuropathy, or nephropathy, at different time scenarios, at 3, 5, and 7 years from the first visit at the Hospital Center for Diabetes (not from the diagnosis). Considered variables are gender, age, time from diagnosis, body mass index (BMI), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypertension, and smoking habit. Final models, tailored in accordance with the complications, provided an accuracy up to 0.838. Different variables were selected for each complication and time scenario, leading to specialized models easy to translate to the clinical practice.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“final models, tailored in accordance with the complications, provided an accuracy up to 0.838”
From Artificial intelligence in diabetes management: Advancements, opportunities, and challenges (2023) · cites this paper as Dagliati et al.97
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“We compared the AUCs for the 3‐year forecasting models, and the AUCs were 0.489 for the SVM model, 0.5 for the RF model, 0.726 for the LR and 0.533 for the NB model.”
From Artificial intelligence based prediction models for individuals at risk of multiple diabetic complications: A systematic review of the literature (2022) · cites this paper as Dagliati et al. (2018)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“LR after RF imputation identified risk factors for microvascular complications.”
From Artificial intelligence based prediction models for individuals at risk of multiple diabetic complications: A systematic review of the literature (2022) · cites this paper as Dagliati et al. (2018)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“SD or CIs were not reported.”
From Artificial intelligence based prediction models for individuals at risk of multiple diabetic complications: A systematic review of the literature (2022) · cites this paper as Dagliati et al. (2018)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Accuracy was reported only for LR.”
From Artificial intelligence based prediction models for individuals at risk of multiple diabetic complications: A systematic review of the literature (2022) · cites this paper as Dagliati et al. (2018)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Stratton, I. M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405 · Cited by 9,059
The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms
Bradley, A. P. (1997) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/s0031-3203(96)00142-2 · Cited by 7,217
MissForest—Non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data
Stekhoven, D. J., & Bühlmann, P. (2012) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr597 · Cited by 6,156
Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme
Matthews, B. W. (1975) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure · doi:10.1016/0005-2795(75)90109-9 · Cited by 5,399
Global prevalence and major risk factors of diabetic retinopathy
Yau, J. W. Y., Rogers, S. L., Kawasaki, R., Lamoureux, E. L., Kowalski, J. W., Bek, T., Chen, S.-J., Dekker, J. M., Fletcher, A., Grauslund, J., et al. (2012) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc11-1909 · Cited by 4,985
(1996) · Cited by 4,738
Artificial intelligence in medicine
Ramesh, A., Kambhampati, C., Monson, J. Q., & Drew, P. J. (2004) · Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England · doi:10.1308/147870804290 · Cited by 1,095
Stratton, I. M., Kohner, E. M., Aldington, S. J., Turner, R. C., Holman, R. R., Manley, S. E., & Matthews, D. R. (2001) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s001250051594 · Cited by 1,019
Risk Factors for Renal Dysfunction in Type 2 Diabetes
Retnakaran, R., Cull, C. A., Thorne, K. I., Adler, A. I., Holman, R. R., & for the UKPDS Study Group (2006) · Diabetes · doi:10.2337/db05-1620 · Cited by 927
Serving the enterprise and beyond with informatics for integrating biology and the bedside (i2b2)
Murphy, S. N., Weber, G. M., Mendis, M., Gainer, V. S., Chueh, H. C., Churchill, S. E., & Kohane, I. S. (2010) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2009.000893 · Cited by 926
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Fayyad U, 1996, AI Mag, 17, 37
- Palmieri L, 2004, Ann Ist Super Sanita, 40, 393
- Ramyachitra D, 2014, Int J Comput Bus Res, 5, 2229
- Bekkar M, 2013, J Inf Eng Appl, 3, 27
- Pugliese G, 2014, Diabetologia, 1, S133
- Mosenzon O, 2015, Diabetes, 64, A156
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–407 of 407
Xiao, H., Xi, Q., Zeng, P., Hao, J., He, Q., Wang, X., & Zhang, C. J. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1798509
Bayesian models to forecast complications and their severity in type 2 diabetes
Aljenfawi, H., Mohammed, A., Alfailakawi, M. G., Al‐Mulla, F., & Hasan, A. (2026) · Intelligence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ibmed.2026.100439
U, R. M. V., & Pushpalatha, M. (2026) · Engineering Technology & Applied Science Research · doi:10.48084/etasr.19369
ten Klooster, I., Kelders, S. M., Kip, H., Crutzen, R., & van Gemert‐Pijnen, J. E. W. C. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1773356 · Cited by 1
Zhang, Y., Feng, S., Xue, Y., Xue, L., & Luo, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2026.1902508
Aleman-Gonzales, L., Choque‐Quispe, B. M., Mamani-Zapana, W. H., Mendoza-Mollocondo, C.-I., Bernedo, E. G. M., Mamani, E. W. C., & Paredes-Quispe, J. R. (2026) · Journal Of Advanced Pharmacy Education And Research · doi:10.51847/oam3w008h7
Gan, S., Choi, H., Lee, D. Y., Choi, C.-J., Koh, J. S., Jeong, C., Seo, W., Kwon, J., Park, R. W., & Park, I. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2026-121518
Metadata
- Authors
- Dagliati, A., Marini, S., Sacchi, L., Cogni, G., Teliti, M., Tibollo, V., De Cata, P., Chiovato, L., & Bellazzi, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Pavia (IT)
- Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri (IT)
- IRCCS Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Pavia, Pavia, Italy
- Corresponding author
- Bellazzi, Riccardo
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-05-12
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 295-302
- ISSN
- 1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5851210
- OpenAlex
- W2612292012
- Cited by
- 407
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 28.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Seventh Framework Programme (Mosaic)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes, diabetes complications, diabetic retinopathy, diabetic neuropathy, diabetic nephropathy, electronic health records, predictive modeling, logistic regression, stepwise feature selection, class imbalance, missing data, random forest, HbA1c, body mass index, hypertension, smoking, clinical decision support
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Algorithms, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Diabetes Complications, Data Mining
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
