Search

Carotid intima-media thickness (c-IMT) is a reliable risk factor for cardiovascular disease risk in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different machine learning methods and traditional multiple logistic regression in predicting c-IMT using baseline features and to establish the most significant risk factors in a T2D cohort. We followed up with 924 patients with T2D for four years, with 75% of the participants used for model development. Machine learning methods, including classification and regression tree, random forest, eXtreme gradient boosting, and Naïve Bayes classifier, were used to predict c-IMT. The results showed that all machine learning methods, except for classification and regression tree, were not inferior to multiple logistic regression in predicting c-IMT in terms of higher area under receiver operation curve. The most significant risk factors for c-IMT were age, sex, creatinine, body mass index, diastolic blood pressure, and duration of diabetes, sequentially. Conclusively, machine learning methods could improve the prediction of c-IMT in T2D patients compared to conventional logistic regression models. This could have crucial implications for the early identification and management of cardiovascular disease in T2D patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The urine albumin–creatinine ratio (uACR) is a warning for the deterioration of renal function in type 2 diabetes (T2D). The early detection of ACR has become an important issue. Multiple linear regression (MLR) has traditionally been used to explore the relationships between risk factors and endpoints. Recently, machine learning (ML) methods have been widely applied in medicine. In the present study, four ML methods were used to predict the uACR in a T2D cohort. We hypothesized that (1) ML outperforms traditional MLR and (2) different ranks of the importance of the risk factors will be obtained. A total of 1147 patients with T2D were followed up for four years. MLR, classification and regression tree, random forest, stochastic gradient boosting, and eXtreme gradient boosting methods were used. Our findings show that the prediction errors of the ML methods are smaller than those of MLR, which indicates that ML is more accurate. The first six most important factors were baseline creatinine level, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, and fasting plasma glucose. In conclusion, ML might be more accurate in predicting uACR in a T2D cohort than the traditional MLR, and the baseline creatinine level is the most important predictor, which is followed by systolic and diastolic blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, and fasting plasma glucose in Chinese patients with T2D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients have a high risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). Thallium-201 myocardial perfusion scan (Th-201 scan) is a non-invasive and extensively used tool in recognizing CAD in clinical settings. In this study, we attempted to compare the predictive accuracy of evaluating abnormal Th-201 scans using traditional multiple linear regression (MLR) with four machine learning (ML) methods. From the study, we can determine whether ML surpasses traditional MLR and rank the clinical variables and compare them with previous reports.In total, 796 T2DM, including 368 men and 528 women, were enrolled. In addition to traditional MLR, classification and regression tree (CART), random forest (RF), stochastic gradient boosting (SGB) and eXtreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) were also used to analyze abnormal Th-201 scans. Stress sum score was used as the endpoint (dependent variable). Our findings show that all four root mean square errors of ML are smaller than with MLR, which implies that ML is more precise than MLR in determining abnormal Th-201 scans by using clinical parameters. The first seven factors, from the most important to the least are:body mass index, hemoglobin, age, glycated hemoglobin, Creatinine, systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In conclusion, ML is not inferior to traditional MLR in predicting abnormal Th-201 scans, and the most important factors are body mass index, hemoglobin, age, glycated hemoglobin, creatinine, systolic and diastolic blood pressure. ML methods are superior in these kinds of studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]