Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Early Diabetic Kidney Disease Risk Profiling in Type 2 Diabetes: Translational Readiness and Clinical Boundaries.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Tianqiang Wu, Wenpin Cai, Zihan Guan, Zhixiang Li
{"title":"Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Early Diabetic Kidney Disease Risk Profiling in Type 2 Diabetes: Translational Readiness and Clinical Boundaries.","authors":"Tianqiang Wu, Wenpin Cai, Zihan Guan, Zhixiang Li","doi":"10.2147/DMSO.S624805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Early kidney-risk profiling in type 2 diabetes is difficult because albuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate, comorbidity, and care access capture different aspects of diabetic kidney disease. This review examines where explainable artificial intelligence may support clinically defensible kidney-risk profiling.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This narrative review used structured searches of PubMed, Semantic Scholar, and OpenAlex using kidney, diabetes, and artificial intelligence/explainability terms, supplemented by citation chasing and full-text assessment of key records. Broad query returns were documented for PubMed (600) and Semantic Scholar (956). Records were screened for topic fit and prioritized for clinical relevance to kidney-risk tasks, endpoint validity, explainability, validation, calibration, missing-data handling, fairness, and workflow relevance; 18 clinically relevant evidence records were retained for detailed synthesis in Supplementary Table 1.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Evidence was organized by clinical task: occult or early diabetic kidney disease detection, incident kidney disease prediction, progression and referral forecasting, retinal and multimodal profiling, and equity-aware risk assessment. Current studies show promising discrimination and increasing use of explanation methods, calibration, decision-curve analysis, web tools, and external or temporal validation. Persistent limits include heterogeneous endpoints, diagnostic circularity, uneven external validation, sparse workflow evidence, and limited fairness or uncertainty reporting.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Explainable artificial intelligence is best viewed as a risk-stratification, communication, and audit layer within guideline-based care, not as a standalone diagnostic or treatment-decision system.</p>","PeriodicalId":11116,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy","volume":"19 ","pages":"624805"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13616159/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S624805","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Early kidney-risk profiling in type 2 diabetes is difficult because albuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate, comorbidity, and care access capture different aspects of diabetic kidney disease. This review examines where explainable artificial intelligence may support clinically defensible kidney-risk profiling.

Methods: This narrative review used structured searches of PubMed, Semantic Scholar, and OpenAlex using kidney, diabetes, and artificial intelligence/explainability terms, supplemented by citation chasing and full-text assessment of key records. Broad query returns were documented for PubMed (600) and Semantic Scholar (956). Records were screened for topic fit and prioritized for clinical relevance to kidney-risk tasks, endpoint validity, explainability, validation, calibration, missing-data handling, fairness, and workflow relevance; 18 clinically relevant evidence records were retained for detailed synthesis in Supplementary Table 1.

Results: Evidence was organized by clinical task: occult or early diabetic kidney disease detection, incident kidney disease prediction, progression and referral forecasting, retinal and multimodal profiling, and equity-aware risk assessment. Current studies show promising discrimination and increasing use of explanation methods, calibration, decision-curve analysis, web tools, and external or temporal validation. Persistent limits include heterogeneous endpoints, diagnostic circularity, uneven external validation, sparse workflow evidence, and limited fairness or uncertainty reporting.

Conclusion: Explainable artificial intelligence is best viewed as a risk-stratification, communication, and audit layer within guideline-based care, not as a standalone diagnostic or treatment-decision system.

2型糖尿病早期糖尿病肾病风险分析的可解释人工智能:转化准备和临床界限
目的:2型糖尿病的早期肾脏风险分析是困难的,因为蛋白尿、估计的肾小球滤过率、合并症和护理可捕获糖尿病肾病的不同方面。本综述探讨了可解释的人工智能在哪些方面可能支持临床可辩护的肾脏风险分析。方法:这篇叙述性综述使用PubMed、Semantic Scholar和OpenAlex的结构化搜索,使用肾脏、糖尿病和人工智能/可解释性术语,辅以引文追踪和关键记录的全文评估。PubMed(600)和Semantic Scholar(956)记录了广泛的查询返回。对记录进行主题匹配筛选,并根据与肾脏风险任务的临床相关性、终点有效性、可解释性、验证、校准、缺失数据处理、公平性和工作流程相关性进行优先排序;保留18份临床相关证据记录,在补充表1中进行详细综合。结果:根据临床任务整理证据:隐匿性或早期糖尿病肾病检测、肾病事件预测、进展和转诊预测、视网膜和多模式分析以及公平意识风险评估。目前的研究表明,有希望的区分和越来越多地使用解释方法、校准、决策曲线分析、网络工具和外部或时间验证。持久的限制包括异构端点、诊断循环、不均匀的外部验证、稀疏的工作流证据以及有限的公平性或不确定性报告。结论:可解释的人工智能最好被视为基于指南的护理中的风险分层、沟通和审计层,而不是作为独立的诊断或治疗决策系统。
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, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy
Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.10%
发文量
431
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: An international, peer-reviewed, open access, online journal. The journal is committed to the rapid publication of the latest laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity research. Original research, review, case reports, hypothesis formation, expert opinion and commentaries are all considered for publication.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书