Machine learning methods in the differential diagnosis of difficult-to-classify types of diabetes mellitus

IF 0.7 Q4 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Diabetes Mellitus Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI:10.14341/dm13070
N. V. Rusyaeva, I. I. Golodnikov, I. V. Kononenko, T. V. Nikonova, M. V. Shestakova
{"title":"Machine learning methods in the differential diagnosis of difficult-to-classify types of diabetes mellitus","authors":"N. V. Rusyaeva, I. I. Golodnikov, I. V. Kononenko, T. V. Nikonova, M. V. Shestakova","doi":"10.14341/dm13070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The course of difficult-to-classify types of diabetes mellitus (DM) (slowly developing immune-mediated DM of adults (LADA), monogenic forms of DM (MODY)) has common features with both type 1 DM (T1DM) and type 2 DM (T2DM), so often remain misdiagnosed. Errors in determining the type of diabetes lead to incorrect treatment tactics, which leads to poor glycemic control, the development of complications, a decrease in the patient's quality of life, and increased mortality. The key method for diagnosing MODY is sequencing of genes associated with this disease, and LADA is an immunological blood test in combination with the features of the clinical picture. However, the exact criteria for referring patients to these studies have not yet been determined. Performing these studies on all patients without exception with risk factors can lead to unjustified economic costs, and access to them is often difficult. In this regard, various automated algorithms have been developed based on statistical methods and machine learning (deep neural networks, “decision trees”, etc.) to identify patients for whom an in-depth examination is most justified. Among them are algorithms for the differential diagnosis of T1DM and T2DM, algorithms specializing in the diagnosis of only LADA or only MODY, only one algorithm is aimed at multiclass classification of patients with diabetes. One of the algorithms is widely used, aimed at diagnosing MODY in patients under the age of 35 years. However, existing algorithms have a number of disadvantages, such as: small sample size, exclusion of patients with MODY or older patients from the study, lack of verification of the diagnosis using appropriate studies, and the use of late complications of diabetes as parameters for diagnosis. Often the research team did not include practicing physicians. In addition, none of the algorithms are publicly available and have not been tested for patients in Russia. This manuscript presents an analysis of the main automated algorithms for the differential diagnosis of diabetes, developed in recent years.","PeriodicalId":11327,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes Mellitus","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes Mellitus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14341/dm13070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The course of difficult-to-classify types of diabetes mellitus (DM) (slowly developing immune-mediated DM of adults (LADA), monogenic forms of DM (MODY)) has common features with both type 1 DM (T1DM) and type 2 DM (T2DM), so often remain misdiagnosed. Errors in determining the type of diabetes lead to incorrect treatment tactics, which leads to poor glycemic control, the development of complications, a decrease in the patient's quality of life, and increased mortality. The key method for diagnosing MODY is sequencing of genes associated with this disease, and LADA is an immunological blood test in combination with the features of the clinical picture. However, the exact criteria for referring patients to these studies have not yet been determined. Performing these studies on all patients without exception with risk factors can lead to unjustified economic costs, and access to them is often difficult. In this regard, various automated algorithms have been developed based on statistical methods and machine learning (deep neural networks, “decision trees”, etc.) to identify patients for whom an in-depth examination is most justified. Among them are algorithms for the differential diagnosis of T1DM and T2DM, algorithms specializing in the diagnosis of only LADA or only MODY, only one algorithm is aimed at multiclass classification of patients with diabetes. One of the algorithms is widely used, aimed at diagnosing MODY in patients under the age of 35 years. However, existing algorithms have a number of disadvantages, such as: small sample size, exclusion of patients with MODY or older patients from the study, lack of verification of the diagnosis using appropriate studies, and the use of late complications of diabetes as parameters for diagnosis. Often the research team did not include practicing physicians. In addition, none of the algorithms are publicly available and have not been tested for patients in Russia. This manuscript presents an analysis of the main automated algorithms for the differential diagnosis of diabetes, developed in recent years.
机器学习方法在难分型糖尿病鉴别诊断中的应用
难以分类的糖尿病(缓慢发展的成人免疫介导型糖尿病(LADA),单基因型糖尿病(MODY))的病程与1型糖尿病(T1DM)和2型糖尿病(T2DM)具有共同特征,因此经常被误诊。判断糖尿病类型的错误会导致不正确的治疗策略,从而导致血糖控制不良、并发症的发生、患者生活质量的下降和死亡率的增加。诊断MODY的关键方法是对本病相关基因进行测序,而LADA则是结合临床影像特点进行的免疫血液检查。然而,将患者转介到这些研究的确切标准尚未确定。对所有有风险因素的患者无一例外地进行这些研究,可能导致不合理的经济成本,而且往往难以获得这些研究。在这方面,各种基于统计方法和机器学习(深度神经网络、“决策树”等)的自动化算法已经被开发出来,以确定对哪些患者进行深度检查是最合理的。其中有T1DM和T2DM的鉴别诊断算法,有专门诊断LADA的算法,也有专门诊断MODY的算法,只有一种算法是针对糖尿病患者进行多类分类的。其中一种算法被广泛使用,旨在诊断35岁以下患者的MODY。然而,现有的算法存在许多缺点,例如:样本量小,将MODY患者或老年患者排除在研究之外,缺乏使用适当的研究对诊断进行验证,以及使用糖尿病晚期并发症作为诊断参数。研究团队通常不包括执业医师。此外,没有一种算法是公开的,也没有在俄罗斯对患者进行过测试。本文介绍了近年来发展起来的用于糖尿病鉴别诊断的主要自动算法的分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diabetes Mellitus
Diabetes Mellitus ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
40.00%
发文量
61
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信