ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2021
Machine Learning-Based Prediction for 4-Year Risk of Metabolic Syndrome in Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpretable machine learning for presurgical differentiation of Hürthle cell carcinoma and adenoma: a SHAP-augmented approach.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- A screening model for advanced colorectal neoplasia based on tumor markers and inflammatory indices: a retrospective study with an online risk calculator.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Risk Analysis in the Lower Silesia Healthy Donors Cohort: Statistical Insights and Machine Learning Classification.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Machine learning with the body roundness index and associated indicators: a new approach to predicting metabolic syndrome.BMC public health · 2025Article
- A machine learning-based framework for predicting metabolic syndrome using serum liver function tests and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Driven Metabolic Syndrome Prediction: An International Cohort Validation Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Prediction of metabolic syndrome using machine learning approaches based on genetic and nutritional factors: a 14-year prospective-based cohort study.BMC medical genomics · 2024Article
- Metabolic syndrome predictive modelling in Bangladesh applying machine learning approach.PloS one · 2024Article
- Automated Machine Learning to Develop Predictive Models of Metabolic Syndrome in Patients with Periodontal Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The integrated common-sense model of illness self-regulation: predicting healthy eating, exercise behaviors, and health among individuals at risk of metabolic syndrome.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Introducing AI to the molecular tumor board: one direction toward the establishment of precision medicine using large-scale cancer clinical and biological information.Experimental hematology & oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMachine learning (ML) techniques have emerged as a promising tool to predict risk and make decisions in different medical domains. We aimed to compare the predictive performance of machine learning-based methods for 4-year risk of metabolic syndrome in adults with the previous model using logistic regression. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study that employed a temporal validation strategy. Three popular ML techniques were selected to build the prognostic models. These techniques were artificial neural networks, classification and regression tree, and support vector machine. The logistic regression algorithm and ML techniques used the same five predictors. Discrimination, calibration, Brier score, and decision curve analysis were compared for model performance.
resultsDiscrimination was above 0.7 for all models except classification and regression tree model in internal validation, while the logistic regression model showed the highest discrimination in external validation (0.782) and the smallest discrimination differences. The logistic regression model had the best calibration performance, and ANN also showed satisfactory calibration in internal validation and external validation. For overall performance, logistic regression had the smallest Brier score differences in internal validation and external validation, and it also had the largest net benefit in external validation.
conclusionOverall, this study indicated that the logistic regression model performed as well as the flexible ML-based prediction models at internal validation, while the logistic regression model had the best performance at external validation. For clinical use, when the performance of the logistic regression model is similar to ML-based prediction models, the simplest and more interpretable model should be chosen.
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.