Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32157171›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Machine learning for characterizing risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in a rural Chinese population: the Henan Rural Cohort Study.

Liying Zhang, Yikang Wang, Miaomiao Niu, Chongjian Wang, Zhenfei Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Improving T2D machine learning-based prediction accuracy with SNPs and younger age.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Automated sample annotation for diabetes mellitus in healthcare integrated biobanking.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Liying ZhangSchool of Information Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, P.R. China.
Yikang WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, P.R. China.
Miaomiao NiuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, P.R. China.
Chongjian WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, P.R. China.ORCID 0000-0001-5091-6621
Zhenfei WangSchool of Information Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, P.R. China. iezfwang@zzu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the development of data mining, machine learning offers opportunities to improve discrimination by analyzing complex interactions among massive variables. To test the ability of machine learning algorithms for predicting risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in a rural Chinese population, we focus on a total of 36,652 eligible participants from the Henan Rural Cohort Study. Risk assessment models for T2DM were developed using six machine learning algorithms, including logistic regression (LR), classification and regression tree (CART), artificial neural networks (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF) and gradient boosting machine (GBM). The model performance was measured in an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under precision recall curve. The importance of variables was identified based on each classifier and the shapley additive explanations approach. Using all available variables, all models for predicting risk of T2DM demonstrated strong predictive performance, with AUCs ranging between 0.811 and 0.872 using laboratory data and from 0.767 to 0.817 without laboratory data. Among them, the GBM model performed best (AUC: 0.872 with laboratory data and 0.817 without laboratory data). Performance of models plateaued when introduced 30 variables to each model except CART model. Among the top-10 variables across all methods were sweet flavor, urine glucose, age, heart rate, creatinine, waist circumference, uric acid, pulse pressure, insulin, and hypertension. New important risk factors (urinary indicators, sweet flavor) were not found in previous risk prediction methods, but determined by machine learning in our study. Through the results, machine learning methods showed competence in predicting risk of T2DM, leading to greater insights on disease risk factors with no priori assumption of causality.

Indexed as

AdultAgedChinaCohort StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerRisk AssessmentROC CurveRural Population

Identifiers

PMID32157171
PMCPMC7064542

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.