Cited by 220Machine Learning in HealthcareMedical Coding and Health InformationDiabetes Management and Research

Automated Detection and Classification of Type 1 Versus Type 2 Diabetes Using Electronic Health Record Data

Open access
Klompas, Michael, Eggleston, Emma, McVetta, Jason, Lazarus, Ross, Li, Lingling, Platt, Richard·2013·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To create surveillance algorithms to detect diabetes and classify type 1 versus type 2 diabetes using structured electronic health record (EHR) data. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We extracted 4 years of data from the EHR of a large, multisite, multispecialty ambulatory practice serving ∼700,000 patients. We flagged possible cases of diabetes using laboratory test results, diagnosis codes, and prescriptions. We assessed the sensitivity and positive predictive value of novel combinations of these data to classify type 1 versus type 2 diabetes among 210 individuals. We applied an optimized algorithm to a live, prospective, EHR-based surveillance system and reviewed 100 additional cases for validation. RESULTS: The diabetes algorithm flagged 43,177 patients. All criteria contributed unique cases: 78% had diabetes diagnosis codes, 66% fulfilled laboratory criteria, and 46% had suggestive prescriptions. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of ICD-9 codes for type 1 diabetes were 26% (95% CI 12–49) and 94% (83–100) for type 1 codes alone; 90% (81–95) and 57% (33–86) for two or more type 1 codes plus any number of type 2 codes. An optimized algorithm incorporating the ratio of type 1 versus type 2 codes, plasma C-peptide and autoantibody levels, and suggestive prescriptions flagged 66 of 66 (100% [96–100]) patients with type 1 diabetes. On validation, the optimized algorithm correctly classified 35 of 36 patients with type 1 diabetes (raw sensitivity, 97% [87–100], population-weighted sensitivity, 65% [36–100], and positive predictive value, 88% [78–98]). CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms applied to EHR data detect more cases of diabetes than claims codes and reasonably discriminate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

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 · 10.2337/dc12-0964

Cites

22 of 22 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?

  • The study used a validated algorithm to discriminate type 2 diabetes from type 1 diabetes using a ratio of ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes.

    “using a validated algorithm to discriminate from type 1 diabetes using a ratio of International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes12”

    From Race and ethnicity and pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes (2024) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Results (Candidate algorithms; page unavailable) describe a ratio of type 1 to type 2 ICD-9 codes, and the Validation section reports testing the optimized classification algorithm. The cited paper does not support the claim that the ratio used ICD-10 codes; it also says the optimized algorithm incorporated laboratory results and prescriptions, not just diagnosis-code ratios. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klompas, M., Eggleston, E., McVetta, J., Lazarus, R., Li, L., & Platt, R.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Heliotropic Inc., Los Angeles, California
Corresponding author
Klompas, Michael
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2013-03-14
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
914-921
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2101071243
Cited by
220
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 2
FWCI
6.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1P01HK00088, P01HK000088)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, diabetes detection, diabetes classification, electronic health records, surveillance algorithms, ICD-9 codes, C-peptide, autoantibodies, laboratory findings, prescription data
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Child, Preschool, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Middle Aged, Young Adult, Electronic Health Records

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