ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Clin. Diabetes Healthc.
Sec. Diabetes Nephropathy
An interpretable patient-level model predicts intradialytic hypoglycemia in maintenance hemodialysis patients with diabetic kidney disease
- GW
Gengxin Wang 1
- WL
Weijuan Li 2
- CL
Chuan Liu 2
- XH
Xiufeng Huang 2
- WZ
Weiliang Zheng 2
1. Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China
2. The Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Abstract
Aims: Intradialytic hypoglycemia is an underrecognized patient-safety problem among patients with diabetic kidney disease receiving maintenance hemodialysis. We developed and internally validated an interpretable electronic health record (EHR)- and dialysis database-based patient-level model intended to support digital risk stratification for 6-month risk of documented intradialytic hypoglycemia using routinely available clinical, biochemical, and dialysis-related variables. Methods: This retrospective single-center prediction-model study included adult patients with diabetic kidney disease who underwent maintenance hemodialysis. The index date was the first eligible hemodialysis session during the study period. Candidate predictors were measured within 30 days before the index date, and the primary outcome was at least one documented intradialytic hypoglycemic event within 6 months, defined as capillary blood glucose <3.9 mmol/L during a hemodialysis session. LASSO logistic regression was used for feature selection, and logistic regression, random forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, and support vector machine models were compared. Results: Among 400 patients, 194 (48.5%) experienced documented intradialytic hypoglycemia. LASSO retained eight predictors: sex, diabetes duration, dialysis vintage, pre-dialysis blood glucose, serum albumin, parathyroid hormone, serum phosphorus, and ultrafiltration volume. In internal validation, logistic regression achieved the best overall performance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.870 (95% CI, 0.800–0.926), accuracy of 0.783, sensitivity of 0.879, specificity of 0.694, F1-score of 0.797, and Brier score of 0.145. Calibration was acceptable, and exploratory decision curve analysis suggested positive net benefit across a range of threshold probabilities. Conclusion: A parsimonious logistic regression model using routinely available variables showed favorable internal validation performance for patient-level risk stratification of documented intradialytic hypoglycemia. It estimates 6-month patient-level risk and is not intended to predict hypoglycemia during an individual dialysis session. However, because the model was derived from a single-center retrospective cohort and the proposed digital workflow was not implemented or prospectively evaluated, it should be regarded as a preliminary risk-stratification framework rather than a validated clinical decision-support tool. External prospective validation is required before clinical deployment.
Summary
Keywords
Clinical decision support, Diabetic kidney disease, Digital Public Health, Electronic Health Records, intradialytic hypoglycemia, Maintenance hemodialysis, Risk prediction model
Received
31 May 2026
Accepted
22 July 2026
Copyright
© 2026 Wang, Li, Liu, Huang and Zheng. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Weijuan Li
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.