OBJECTIVE: We sought to predict if patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) would develop 10 selected complications. Accurate prediction of complications could help with more targeted measures that would prevent or slow down their development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experiments were conducted on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases of California for the period of 2003 to 2011. Recurrent neural network (RNN) long short-term memory (LSTM) and RNN gated recurrent unit (GRU) deep learning methods were designed and compared with random forest and multilayer perceptron traditional models. Prediction accuracy of selected complications were compared on 3 settings corresponding to minimum number of hospitalizations between diabetes diagnosis and the diagnosis of complications. RESULTS: The diagnosis domain was used for experiments. The best results were achieved with RNN GRU model, followed by RNN LSTM model. The prediction accuracy achieved with RNN GRU model was between 73% (myocardial infarction) and 83% (chronic ischemic heart disease), while accuracy of traditional models was between 66% - 76%. DISCUSSION: The number of hospitalizations was an important factor for the prediction accuracy. Experiments with 4 hospitalizations achieved significantly better accuracy than with 2 hospitalizations. To achieve improved accuracy deep learning models required training on at least 1000 patients and accuracy significantly dropped if training datasets contained 500 patients. The prediction accuracy of complications decreases over time period. Considering individual complications, the best accuracy was achieved on depressive disorder and chronic ischemic heart disease. CONCLUSIONS: The RNN GRU model was the best choice for electronic medical record type of data, based on the achieved results.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to predict if patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) would develop 10 selected complications. Accurate prediction of complications could help with more targeted measures that would prevent or slow down their development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experiments were conducted on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases of California for the period of 2003 to 2011. Recurrent neural network (RNN) long short-term memory (LSTM) and RNN gated recurrent unit (GRU) deep learning methods were designed and compared with random forest and multilayer perceptron traditional models. Prediction accuracy of selected complications were compared on 3 settings corresponding to minimum number of hospitalizations between diabetes diagnosis and the diagnosis of complications. RESULTS: The diagnosis domain was used for experiments. The best results were achieved with RNN GRU model, followed by RNN LSTM model. The prediction accuracy achieved with RNN GRU model was between 73% (myocardial infarction) and 83% (chronic ischemic heart disease), while accuracy of traditional models was between 66% - 76%. DISCUSSION: The number of hospitalizations was an important factor for the prediction accuracy. Experiments with 4 hospitalizations achieved significantly better accuracy than with 2 hospitalizations. To achieve improved accuracy deep learning models required training on at least 1000 patients and accuracy significantly dropped if training datasets contained 500 patients. The prediction accuracy of complications decreases over time period. Considering individual complications, the best accuracy was achieved on depressive disorder and chronic ischemic heart disease. CONCLUSIONS: The RNN GRU model was the best choice for electronic medical record type of data, based on the achieved results.
Authors: Dawn Konrad-Martin; Kelly M Reavis; Donald Austin; Nicholas Reed; Jane Gordon; Dan McDermott; Marilyn F Dille Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Alan J Garber; Martin J Abrahamson; Joshua I Barzilay; Lawrence Blonde; Zachary T Bloomgarden; Michael A Bush; Samuel Dagogo-Jack; Ralph A DeFronzo; Daniel Einhorn; Vivian A Fonseca; Jeffrey R Garber; W Timothy Garvey; George Grunberger; Yehuda Handelsman; Irl B Hirsch; Paul S Jellinger; Janet B McGill; Jeffrey I Mechanick; Paul D Rosenblit; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Brian C Callaghan; Hsinlin T Cheng; Catherine L Stables; Andrea L Smith; Eva L Feldman Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Yang-Hoon Chung; Young-Seob Jeong; Gati Lother Martin; Min Seo Choi; You Jin Kang; Misoon Lee; Ana Cho; Bon Sung Koo; Sung Hwan Cho; Sang Hyun Kim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Branimir Ljubic; Shoumik Roychoudhury; Xi Hang Cao; Martin Pavlovski; Stefan Obradovic; Richard Nair; Lucas Glass; Zoran Obradovic Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2020-09-20 Impact factor: 5.428