4.7 Article

Risk-Profile and Feature Selection Comparison in Diabetic Retinopathy

Journal

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm11121327

Keywords

diabetic retinopathy; feature selection; random forest; risk factors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study constructed a predictive model to identify risk factors for diabetic retinopathy in the Mexican population. The model achieved 69% AUC and identified factors such as creatinine and lipid treatment as significant predictors. A risk evaluation method was also implemented to assess the impact of these factors.
One of the main microvascular complications presented in the Mexican population is diabetic retinopathy which affects 27.50% of individuals with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to construct a predictive model to find out the risk factors of this complication. The dataset contained a total of 298 subjects, including clinical and paraclinical features. An analysis was constructed using machine learning techniques including Boruta as a feature selection method, and random forest as classification algorithm. The model was evaluated through a statistical test based on sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The results present significant values obtained by the model obtaining 69% of AUC. Moreover, a risk evaluation was incorporated to evaluate the impact of the predictors. The proposed method identifies creatinine, lipid treatment, glomerular filtration rate, waist hip ratio, total cholesterol, and high density lipoprotein as risk factors in Mexican subjects. The odds ratio increases by 3.5916 times for control patients which have high levels of cholesterol. It is possible to conclude that this proposed methodology is a preliminary computer-aided diagnosis tool for clinical decision-helping to identify the diagnosis of DR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available