ArticleBiochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular basis of disease2017
Methods needed to measure predictive accuracy: A study of diabetic patients.
Article in Biochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular basis of disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data-driven diabetes mellitus prediction and management: a comparative evaluation of decision tree classifier and artificial neural network models along with statistical analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A cross-sectional primary care study of knowledge, attitudes, and practices of type 2 diabetes self-care and their association with sociodemographic and sociocultural factors in Cali, Colombia.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- A New Way of Investigating the Relationship Between Fasting Blood Sugar Level and Drinking Glucose Solution.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diabetes is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality and it can result in several complications such as kidney failure, heart failure, stroke, and blindness making it a major medical and public health concern in the United States. Statistical methods are important to detect risk factors and identify the best sampling plan to determine predictive bounds for diabetic patients' data. The main objective of this paper is to identify the best fit bootstrapping sampling method and to draw the predictive bound considering diabetes patient data. A random sample was used from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) for this study. We found that there were significant relationships between age, marital status, and race/ethnicity with diabetes status (p<0.001) and no relationship was observed between gender and diabetes status. We ran the logistic regression to identify the risk factors from the data. We identified that the significant risk factors are age (p<0.001), total protein (p<0.001), fast food (p<0.0339), and direct HDL (p<0.001). This study provides evidence that the parametric bootstrapping method is the best fit method compared with other methods to estimate the predictive error bounds. These findings will be of great significance for identifying the best sampling methods, which can increase the statistical accuracy of laboratory clinical research of diabetes. This will also allow for the determination of precise risk factors that will best represent the data by detecting mild and extreme outliers from disease observations. Therefore, these results will be useful for researchers and clinicians to select the best sampling methods to study diabetes and other diseases in order to maximize the accuracy of their results. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Oxidative Stress and Mitochondrial Quality in Diabetes/Obesity and Critical Illness Spectrum of Diseases - edited by P. Hemachandra Reddy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.