Machine Learning Models for Blood Glucose Level Prediction in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
blood glucose
blood glucose management
diabetes
hypoglycemia
machine learning
Journal
JMIR medical informatics
ISSN: 2291-9694
Titre abrégé: JMIR Med Inform
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101645109
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Nov 2023
20 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
03
04
2023
accepted:
12
10
2023
revised:
21
08
2023
medline:
20
11
2023
pubmed:
20
11
2023
entrez:
20
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Machine learning (ML) models provide more choices to patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) to more properly manage blood glucose (BG) levels. However, because of numerous types of ML algorithms, choosing an appropriate model is vitally important. In a systematic review and network meta-analysis, this study aimed to comprehensively assess the performance of ML models in predicting BG levels. In addition, we assessed ML models used to detect and predict adverse BG (hypoglycemia) events by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Explore databases were systematically searched for studies on predicting BG levels and predicting or detecting adverse BG events using ML models, from inception to November 2022. Studies that assessed the performance of different ML models in predicting or detecting BG levels or adverse BG events of patients with DM were included. Studies with no derivation or performance metrics of ML models were excluded. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was applied to assess the quality of included studies. Primary outcomes were the relative ranking of ML models for predicting BG levels in different prediction horizons (PHs) and pooled estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of ML models in detecting or predicting adverse BG events. In total, 46 eligible studies were included for meta-analysis. Regarding ML models for predicting BG levels, the means of the absolute root mean square error (RMSE) in a PH of 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes were 18.88 (SD 19.71), 21.40 (SD 12.56), 21.27 (SD 5.17), and 30.01 (SD 7.23) mg/dL, respectively. The neural network model (NNM) showed the highest relative performance in different PHs. Furthermore, the pooled estimates of the positive likelihood ratio and the negative likelihood ratio of ML models were 8.3 (95% CI 5.7-12.0) and 0.31 (95% CI 0.22-0.44), respectively, for predicting hypoglycemia and 2.4 (95% CI 1.6-3.7) and 0.37 (95% CI 0.29-0.46), respectively, for detecting hypoglycemia. Statistically significant high heterogeneity was detected in all subgroups, with different sources of heterogeneity. For predicting precise BG levels, the RMSE increases with a rise in the PH, and the NNM shows the highest relative performance among all the ML models. Meanwhile, current ML models have sufficient ability to predict adverse BG events, while their ability to detect adverse BG events needs to be enhanced. PROSPERO CRD42022375250; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=375250.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Machine learning (ML) models provide more choices to patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) to more properly manage blood glucose (BG) levels. However, because of numerous types of ML algorithms, choosing an appropriate model is vitally important.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
In a systematic review and network meta-analysis, this study aimed to comprehensively assess the performance of ML models in predicting BG levels. In addition, we assessed ML models used to detect and predict adverse BG (hypoglycemia) events by calculating pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity.
METHODS
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Explore databases were systematically searched for studies on predicting BG levels and predicting or detecting adverse BG events using ML models, from inception to November 2022. Studies that assessed the performance of different ML models in predicting or detecting BG levels or adverse BG events of patients with DM were included. Studies with no derivation or performance metrics of ML models were excluded. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was applied to assess the quality of included studies. Primary outcomes were the relative ranking of ML models for predicting BG levels in different prediction horizons (PHs) and pooled estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of ML models in detecting or predicting adverse BG events.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 46 eligible studies were included for meta-analysis. Regarding ML models for predicting BG levels, the means of the absolute root mean square error (RMSE) in a PH of 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes were 18.88 (SD 19.71), 21.40 (SD 12.56), 21.27 (SD 5.17), and 30.01 (SD 7.23) mg/dL, respectively. The neural network model (NNM) showed the highest relative performance in different PHs. Furthermore, the pooled estimates of the positive likelihood ratio and the negative likelihood ratio of ML models were 8.3 (95% CI 5.7-12.0) and 0.31 (95% CI 0.22-0.44), respectively, for predicting hypoglycemia and 2.4 (95% CI 1.6-3.7) and 0.37 (95% CI 0.29-0.46), respectively, for detecting hypoglycemia.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Statistically significant high heterogeneity was detected in all subgroups, with different sources of heterogeneity. For predicting precise BG levels, the RMSE increases with a rise in the PH, and the NNM shows the highest relative performance among all the ML models. Meanwhile, current ML models have sufficient ability to predict adverse BG events, while their ability to detect adverse BG events needs to be enhanced.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
PROSPERO CRD42022375250; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=375250.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37983072
pii: v11i1e47833
doi: 10.2196/47833
pmc: PMC10696506
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e47833Informations de copyright
©Kui Liu, Linyi Li, Yifei Ma, Jun Jiang, Zhenhua Liu, Zichen Ye, Shuang Liu, Chen Pu, Changsheng Chen, Yi Wan. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org), 20.11.2023.
Références
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020 Mar;14(2):250-256
pubmed: 31390891
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017 Jun;19(S3):S25-S37
pubmed: 28585879
Entropy (Basel). 2020 Jan 09;22(1):
pubmed: 33285854
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jul;174(7):1116-24
pubmed: 24838229
Ren Fail. 2022 Dec;44(1):562-570
pubmed: 35373711
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2005 Jul;43(4):501-7
pubmed: 16255433
Sensors (Basel). 2022 Feb 21;22(4):
pubmed: 35214566
NPJ Digit Med. 2021 Jul 14;4(1):109
pubmed: 34262114
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010 Jan;12(1):81-8
pubmed: 20082589
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016 Nov 1;10(6):1245-1250
pubmed: 27660190
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012 Jun;59(6):1550-60
pubmed: 22374344
ISA Trans. 2016 Sep;64:440-446
pubmed: 27311357
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
pubmed: 19622552
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Jun;126:1-8
pubmed: 31029250
JMIR Diabetes. 2021 Jan 29;6(1):e22458
pubmed: 33512324
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019 Nov;13(6):1008-1016
pubmed: 31645119
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020 Nov;22(11):801-811
pubmed: 32297795
Ren Fail. 2021 Dec;43(1):231-240
pubmed: 33478336
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:302-5
pubmed: 25569957
Artif Intell Med. 2012 Jul;55(3):177-84
pubmed: 22698854
Sensors (Basel). 2021 Feb 27;21(5):
pubmed: 33673415
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013 Jul;15(7):538-43
pubmed: 23631608
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Curr Diab Rep. 2019 Jul 31;19(9):72
pubmed: 31367962
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019 Sep;13(5):919-927
pubmed: 30650997
Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2017 Jun;33(6):
pubmed: 27644067
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:4930-3
pubmed: 21096665
J Healthc Inform Res. 2020 Apr 12;4(3):308-324
pubmed: 35415447
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:3515-8
pubmed: 23366685
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2020 May;24(5):1439-1446
pubmed: 31536025
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019 Nov;157:107843
pubmed: 31518657
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2020 May;24(5):1237-1245
pubmed: 31369389
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015 Jan;9(1):86-90
pubmed: 25316712
JAMA. 1994 Mar 2;271(9):703-7
pubmed: 8309035
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020 Nov;169:108388
pubmed: 32858096
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2020 Feb;24(2):414-423
pubmed: 31369390
Diabet Med. 2017 Oct;34(10):1385-1391
pubmed: 28632918
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010 Jan 01;4(1):67-74
pubmed: 20167169
Artif Intell Med. 2021 Aug;118:102120
pubmed: 34412843
JMIR Med Inform. 2019 Nov 8;7(4):e14340
pubmed: 31702562
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021 Oct;180:109040
pubmed: 34500005
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013 Oct;15(10):792-801
pubmed: 23883406
IEEE Trans Cybern. 2014 Aug;44(8):1338-49
pubmed: 24122616
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2018 Jul;2018:3862-3865
pubmed: 30441206
Diabetes Care. 2020 Jul;43(7):1504-1511
pubmed: 32350021
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Nov 6;19(1):210
pubmed: 31694629
BMC Med. 2023 Jan 24;21(1):30
pubmed: 36690983
Stud Fam Plann. 1999 Mar;30(1):67-77
pubmed: 10216897
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021 Jul;15(4):842-855
pubmed: 32476492
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020 Aug;22(8):562-569
pubmed: 31928415
Ann Biomed Eng. 2012 Apr;40(4):934-45
pubmed: 22012087
Diabetes Metab J. 2021 Jul;45(4):526-538
pubmed: 34352988
BMC Med. 2023 Feb 24;21(1):70
pubmed: 36829188
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Nov;36(8):e3348
pubmed: 32445286
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Mar 19;20(6):
pubmed: 32204318
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2020 Jul;2020:5140-5145
pubmed: 33019143
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:5386-9
pubmed: 24110953
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2022 Jan;26(1):436-445
pubmed: 34314367
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 11;21(3):e11990
pubmed: 30855231
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120