Background Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a leading cause of kidney failure in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D), yet risk identification in routine clinical practice remains incomplete. A critical and often overlooked barrier is risk observability: how much of a patient’s underlying risk is actually captured in their clinical record at the time of screening. Existing prediction models evaluate performance using model-specific thresholds, making it difficult to understand how additional data sources alter real-world screening behavior or which individuals benefit when models are expanded.

Methods We developed a series of five nested machine learning models evaluated at a one-year landmark following T2D diagnosis using data from the All of Us Research Program (N = 39,431; cases = 16,193). Each successive model added a distinct information layer -- intrinsic risk, laboratory snapshots, medication exposure, longitudinal care trajectories, and social determinants of health (SDOH) -- while retaining all prior features. All models were evaluated under a fixed screening policy targeting 90% specificity, so that the false positive rate remained constant as the information available to the model grew. External validation was conducted in the BioMe Biobank (N = 9,818) without retraining.

Results Discrimination improved consistently across layers, from AUROC 0.673 (M1) to 0.797 (M5). Under the fixed screening policy, sensitivity nearly doubled from 0.27 to 0.49, with a cumulative recovery of 30.4% of cases missed by the base model. Gains were driven by distinct subgroups at each transition: laboratory features identified biologically high-risk individuals; medication features captured those with high treatment intensity reflecting advanced cardiometabolic burden; longitudinal care trajectory features rescued cases with biological instability observable only through repeated measurements; and SDOH features recovered individuals with limited clinical observability, with rescue probability highest among those with the fewest recorded monitoring domains. Sparse data in the clinical record indicated low observability, not low risk. Social and genetic features each contributed most when downstream physiologic signal was limited, supporting a contextual rather than universal role for each. In BioMe, discrimination was attenuated (M4 AUROC 0.659), but the relative ordering of information layers was fully preserved, and a systematic upward shift in predicted probability distributions underscored the need for recalibration before deployment in a new setting.

Conclusions DKD risk detection in T2D is substantially improved by integrating complementary information layers under a fixed clinical screening policy, with gains arising from distinct domains that identify at-risk individuals in different clinical contexts. The layered landmark framework introduced here reveals how risk observability -- shaped by monitoring intensity, healthcare engagement, and access -- determines what a screening model can detect, and provides a foundation for context-aware EHR-based screening that accounts for data availability at the time of risk assessment.

The top row defines the cohort timeline, in which predictors are derived from clinical data collected between T2D diagnosis and the 1-year landmark, and incident DKD is ascertained after the landmark. The second row depicts the nested model architecture, in which five successive models sequentially incorporate intrinsic risk, laboratory snapshot features, medication exposure, longitudinal care trajectories, and social determinants of health, while retaining all features from prior layers. The third row summarizes model development in the All of Us Research Program (N = 39,431) and external validation in the BioMe Biobank (N = 9,818), where the same trained models and risk thresholds were applied without retraining. The bottom row highlights the three evaluation domains: predictive performance, fixed-policy screening, and missed-case recovery context.

DKD, diabetic kidney disease; T2D, type 2 diabetes; PRS, polygenic risk scores; AUROC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; AUPRC, area under the precision-recall curve; PPV, positive predictive value; SHAP, SHapley Additive exPlanations.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R35HL155466, K24HL133373) and the Alabama Genomic Health Initiative.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Institutional Review Board of The University of Alabama at Birmingham gave ethical approval for this work. The PRS research leveraging All of Us Research Program datasets was approved under protocol IRB-300006721. All of Us participants provided informed consent at enrollment. The BioMe Biobank Program operates under a research protocol approved by the Mount Sinai Program for the Protection of Human Subjects, and all BioMe participants provided written informed consent.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes