Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31694707›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

A data-driven approach to predicting diabetes and cardiovascular disease with machine learning.

An Dinh, Stacey Miertschin, Amber Young, Somya D Mohanty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 166 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
166citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

166 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Metabolic syndrome and a broken heart: trust your gut or risk your heart.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

106 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

An DinhDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eastern Oregon University, La Grande, OR, USA.
Stacey MiertschinDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Winona State University, Winona, MN, USA.
Amber YoungDepartment of Statistics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Somya D MohantyDepartment of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA. sdmohant@uncg.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4253-5201

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes and cardiovascular disease are two of the main causes of death in the United States. Identifying and predicting these diseases in patients is the first step towards stopping their progression. We evaluate the capabilities of machine learning models in detecting at-risk patients using survey data (and laboratory results), and identify key variables within the data contributing to these diseases among the patients.

methodsOur research explores data-driven approaches which utilize supervised machine learning models to identify patients with such diseases. Using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) dataset, we conduct an exhaustive search of all available feature variables within the data to develop models for cardiovascular, prediabetes, and diabetes detection. Using different time-frames and feature sets for the data (based on laboratory data), multiple machine learning models (logistic regression, support vector machines, random forest, and gradient boosting) were evaluated on their classification performance. The models were then combined to develop a weighted ensemble model, capable of leveraging the performance of the disparate models to improve detection accuracy. Information gain of tree-based models was used to identify the key variables within the patient data that contributed to the detection of at-risk patients in each of the diseases classes by the data-learned models.

resultsThe developed ensemble model for cardiovascular disease (based on 131 variables) achieved an Area Under - Receiver Operating Characteristics (AU-ROC) score of 83.1% using no laboratory results, and 83.9% accuracy with laboratory results. In diabetes classification (based on 123 variables), eXtreme Gradient Boost (XGBoost) model achieved an AU-ROC score of 86.2% (without laboratory data) and 95.7% (with laboratory data). For pre-diabetic patients, the ensemble model had the top AU-ROC score of 73.7% (without laboratory data), and for laboratory based data XGBoost performed the best at 84.4%. Top five predictors in diabetes patients were 1) waist size, 2) age, 3) self-reported weight, 4) leg length, and 5) sodium intake. For cardiovascular diseases the models identified 1) age, 2) systolic blood pressure, 3) self-reported weight, 4) occurrence of chest pain, and 5) diastolic blood pressure as key contributors.

conclusionWe conclude machine learned models based on survey questionnaire can provide an automated identification mechanism for patients at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. We also identify key contributors to the prediction, which can be further explored for their implications on electronic health records.

Indexed as

Machine LearningCardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes MellitusElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleNutrition SurveysPredictive Value of TestsROC CurveSupport Vector MachineEnsemble learningFeature learningHealth analyticsMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID31694707
PMCPMC6836338

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.