Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30805372›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes research2019

Identification of Potential Type II Diabetes in a Chinese Population with a Sensitive Decision Tree Approach.

Dongmei Pei, Chengpu Zhang, Yu Quan, Qiyong Guo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Deep learning approach for diabetes prediction using PIMA Indian dataset.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2020
    Article
  11. Estimation of Diabetes in a High-Risk Adult Chinese Population Using J48 Decision Tree Model.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dongmei PeiDepartment of Family Medicine, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Chengpu ZhangDepartment of Family Medicine, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Yu QuanDepartment of Informatics, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Qiyong GuoDepartment of Radiology, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6399-6613
China Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes mellitus is a chronic disease with a steadfast increase in prevalence. Due to the chronic course of the disease combining with devastating complications, this disorder could easily carry a financial burden. The early diagnosis of diabetes remains as one of the major challenges medical providers are facing, and the satisfactory screening tools or methods are still required, especially a population- or community-based tool.

methodsThis is a retrospective cross-sectional study involving 15,323 subjects who underwent the annual check-up in the Department of Family Medicine of Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University from January 2017 to June 2017. With a strict data filtration, 10,436 records from the eligible participants were utilized to develop a prediction model using the J48 decision tree algorithm. Nine variables, including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, history of cardiovascular disease or stroke, family history of diabetes, physical activity, work-related stress, and salty food preference, were considered.

resultsThe accuracy, precision, recall, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value for identifying potential diabetes were 94.2%, 94.0%, 94.2%, and 94.8%, respectively. The structure of the decision tree shows that age is the most significant feature. The decision tree demonstrated that among those participants with age ≤ 49, 5497 participants (97%) of the individuals were identified as nondiabetic, while age > 49, 771 participants (50%) of the individuals were identified as nondiabetic. In the subgroup where people were 34 < age ≤ 49 and BMI ≥ 25, when with positive family history of diabetes, 89 (92%) out of 97 individuals were identified as diabetic and, when without family history of diabetes, 576 (58%) of the individuals were identified as nondiabetic. Work-related stress was identified as being associated with diabetes. In individuals with 34 < age ≤ 49 and BMI ≥ 25 and without family history of diabetes, 22 (51%) of the individuals with high work-related stress were identified as nondiabetic while 349 (88%) of the individuals with low or moderate work-related stress were identified as not having diabetes.

conclusionsWe proposed a classifier based on a decision tree which used nine features of patients which are easily obtained and noninvasive as predictor variables to identify potential incidents of diabetes. The classifier indicates that a decision tree analysis can be successfully applied to screen diabetes, which will support clinical practitioners for rapid diabetes identification. The model provides a means to target the prevention of diabetes which could reduce the burden on the health system through effective case management.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexMass ScreeningAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsAlgorithmsChinaCross-Sectional StudiesDecision TreesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Early DiagnosisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID30805372
PMCPMC6362481
OpenAlexW2911458701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.