Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34930452›Full record

ReviewDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2021

Machine learning and deep learning predictive models for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.

Luis Fregoso-Aparicio, Julieta Noguez, Luis Montesinos, José A García-García

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Identification of Patient Clusters with Distinct Disease Progression Patterns Utilizing a Nationwide Finnish Population with Type 2 Diabetes.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Improving T2D machine learning-based prediction accuracy with SNPs and younger age.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Luis Fregoso-AparicioSchool of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Av Lago de Guadalupe KM 3.5, Margarita Maza de Juarez, 52926, Cd Lopez Mateos, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4986-5745
Julieta NoguezSchool of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501, 64849, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. jnoguez@tec.mx.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6000-3452
Luis MontesinosSchool of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501, 64849, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3976-4190
José A García-GarcíaHospital General de Mexico Dr. Eduardo Liceaga, Dr. Balmis 148, Doctores, Cuauhtemoc, 06720, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6876-4558

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diabetes Mellitus is a severe, chronic disease that occurs when blood glucose levels rise above certain limits. Over the last years, machine and deep learning techniques have been used to predict diabetes and its complications. However, researchers and developers still face two main challenges when building type 2 diabetes predictive models. First, there is considerable heterogeneity in previous studies regarding techniques used, making it challenging to identify the optimal one. Second, there is a lack of transparency about the features used in the models, which reduces their interpretability. This systematic review aimed at providing answers to the above challenges. The review followed the PRISMA methodology primarily, enriched with the one proposed by Keele and Durham Universities. Ninety studies were included, and the type of model, complementary techniques, dataset, and performance parameters reported were extracted. Eighteen different types of models were compared, with tree-based algorithms showing top performances. Deep Neural Networks proved suboptimal, despite their ability to deal with big and dirty data. Balancing data and feature selection techniques proved helpful to increase the model's efficiency. Models trained on tidy datasets achieved almost perfect models.

Indexed as

Deep learningDiabetesElectronic health recordsMachine learningReview

Identifiers

PMID34930452
PMCPMC8686642

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.