Machine Learning-Based Diagnosis and Ranking of Risk Factors for Diabetic Retinopathy in Population-Based Studies from South India

Abstract

This paper discusses the importance of investigating DR using machine learning and a computational method to rank DR risk factors by importance using different machine learning models. The dataset was collected from four large population-based studies conducted in India between 2001 and 2010 on the prevalence of DR and its risk factors. We deployed different machine learning models on the dataset to rank the importance of the variables (risk factors). The study uses a t-test and Shapely additive explanations (SHAP) to rank the risk factors. Then, it uses five machine learning models (K-Nearest Neighbor, Decision Tree, Support Vector Machines, Logistic Regression, and Naive Bayes) to identify the unimportant risk factors based on the area under the curve criterion to predict DR. To determine the overall significance of risk variables, a weighted average of each classifier’s importance is used. The ranking of risk variables is provided to machine learning models. To construct a model for DR prediction, the combination of risk factors with the highest AUC is chosen. The results show that the risk factors glycosylated hemoglobin and systolic blood pressure were present in the top three risk factors for DR in all five machine learning models when the t-test was used for ranking. Furthermore, the risk factors, namely, systolic blood pressure and history of hypertension, were present in the top five risk factors for DR in all the machine learning models when SHAP was used for ranking. Finally, when an ensemble of the five machine learning models was employed, independently with both the t-test and SHAP, systolic blood pressure and diabetes mellitus duration were present in the top four risk factors for diabetic retinopathy. Decision Tree and K-Nearest Neighbor resulted in the highest AUCs of 0.79 (t-test) and 0.77 (SHAP). Moreover, K-Nearest Neighbor predicted DR with 82.6% (t-test) and 78.3% (SHAP) accuracy.