On the Use of Decision Trees Based on Diagnosis and Drug Codes for Analyzing Chronic Patients

  • Cristina Soguero-RuizEmail author
  • Ana Alberca Díaz-Plaza
  • Pablo de Miguel Bohoyo
  • Javier Ramos-López
  • Manuel Rubio-Sánchez
  • Alberto Sánchez
  • Inmaculada Mora-Jiménez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10814)


Diabetes mellitus (DM) and essential hypertension (EH) are chronic diseases more prevalent every year, both independently and jointly. To gain insights about the particularities of these chronic conditions, we study the use of decision trees as a tool for selecting discriminative features and making predictive analyses of the health status of this kind of chronic patients. We considered gender, age, ICD9 codes for diagnosis and ATC codes for drugs associated with the diabetic and/or hypertensive population linked to the University Hospital of Fuenlabrada (Madrid, Spain) during 2012. Results show a relationship among DM/EH and diseases/drugs related to the respiratory system, mental disorders, or the musculoskeletal system. We conclude that drugs are quite informative, collecting information about the disease when the diagnosis code is not registered. Regarding predictive analyses, when discriminating patients with EH-DM and just one of these chronic conditions, better accuracy is obtained for EH (85.4%) versus DM (80.1%).


Chronic health status Diabetes Hypertension Feature selection Decision trees Diagnoses Drugs 



This work has been partly supported by Research Projects TEC2016-75361-R, TIN2014-62143-EXP, and TIN2015-70799-R from the Spanish Government, and Research Project DTS17/00158 from Carlos III Institute.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Anderson, G., Horvath, J.: The growing burden of chronic disease in America. Public Health Rep. 119(3), 263–270 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soni, A., Mitchell, E.: Expenditures for commonly treated conditions among adults age 18 and older in the US civilian noninstitutionalized population, 2013 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kearney, P.M., et al.: Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet 365(9455), 217–223 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Diabetes Federation: IDF Diabetes Atlas, 5th edn. International Diabetes Federation, Brussels (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hollis, W.C.: Aggravation of diabetes mellitus during treatment with chlorothiazide. JAMA 176(11), 947–949 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karnes, J.H., Cooper-DeHoff, R.M.: Antihypertensive medications: benefits of blood pressure lowering and hazards of metabolic effects. Expert Rev. Cardiovasc. Ther. 7(6), 689–702 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith, S., Holohan, J., McAuliffe, A., Firth, R.: Irish diabetes detection programme in general practice. Diabet. Med. 20(9), 717–722 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greaves, C., et al.: A simple pragmatic system for detecting new cases of type 2 diabetes and impaired fasting glycaemia in primary care. Fam. Pract. 21(1), 57–62 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Woolthuis, K., et al.: Identifying people at risk for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes using the GP’s electronic medical record. Fam. Pract. 24(3), 230–236 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis, N.A., LaCour, M.: Foundations of Health Information Management. Elsevier Health Sciences, Amsterdam (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Averill, R.F., et al.: Development and evaluation of clinical risk groups (CRGs). 3M Health Information Systems (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hughes, J.S., et al.: Clinical risk groups (CRGs): a classification system for risk-adjusted capitation-based payment and health care management. Med. Care 42(1), 81–90 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fernández-Sánchez, J., et al.: Clinical risk groups analysis for chronic hypertensive patients in terms of ICD9-cm diagnosis codes. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Physiological Computing Systems - Vol. 1. INSTICC, SciTePress, pp. 13–22 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    WHO: collaborating centre for drug statistics methodology. In: Guidelines for ATC Classification and DDD Assignment (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Duda, R.O., et al.: Pattern Classification, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ripley, B.D.: Pattern Recognition and Neural Networks. CUP, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quinlan, J.: C4.5. Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wallace, B.C., et al.: Class imbalance, redux. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Mining, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 754–763, 11–14 December 2011Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferri, C., et al.: An experimental comparison of performance measures for classification. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 30(1), 27–38 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simó, R., et al.: High prevalence of hepatitis c virus infection in diabetic patients. Diabetes care 19(9), 998–1000 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Colunga-Rodríguez, C., et al.: Type 2 diabetes and depression in Guadalajara, Mexico, 2005. Revista de salud publica 10(1), 137–149 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rey Juan Carlos UniversityMadridSpain
  2. 2.University Hospital of FuenlabradaMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations