ArticleBioMed research international2022
Use of Machine Learning and Routine Laboratory Tests for Diabetes Mellitus Screening.
Article in BioMed research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying Artificial Intelligence to Childhood Obesity: T2DM and MASLD Risk Predictive Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Prediabetes: A Scoping Review.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Review
- Predicting diabetic retinopathy based on routine laboratory tests by machine learning algorithms.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Chinese Massage (Tuina) Attenuates Knee Osteoarthritis by Modulating Autophagy-Related Cytokines: A Multidisciplinary Methodological Investigation.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
- Automated sample annotation for diabetes mellitus in healthcare integrated biobanking.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- Performance of different machine learning algorithms in identifying undiagnosed diabetes based on nonlaboratory parameters and the influence of muscle strength: A cross-sectional study.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2024Article
- Comparative effectiveness of explainable machine learning approaches for extrauterine growth restriction classification in preterm infants using longitudinal data.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Metabolic and Genetic Markers Improve Prediction of Incident Type 2 Diabetes: A Nested Case-Control Study in Chinese.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2022Article
- Exploring Explainable Machine Learning for Predicting and Interpreting Self-Reported Diabetes among Tennessee Adults: Insights from the 2023 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most patients with diabetes mellitus are asymptomatic, which leads to delayed and more complex treatment. At the same time, most individuals are routinely subjected to standard clinical laboratory examinations, which create large health datasets over a lifetime. Computer processing has been used to search for health anomalies and predict diseases using clinical examinations. This work studied machine learning models to support the screening of diabetes through routine laboratory tests using data from laboratory tests of 62,496 patients. The classification and regression models used were the K-nearest neighbor, support vector machines, Bayes naïve, random forest models, and artificial neural networks. Glycated hemoglobin, a test used for diabetes diagnosis, was used as the target. Regression models calculated glycated hemoglobin directly and were later classified. The performance of classification computer models has been studied under various subdataset partitions and combinations (e.g., healthy, prediabetic, and diabetes, as well as no healthy and no diabetes). The best single performance was achieved with the artificial neural network model when detecting prediabetes or diabetes. The artificial neural network classification model scored 78.1%, 78.7%, and 78.4% for sensitivity, precision, and F1 scores, respectively, when identifying no healthy group. Other models also had good results, depending on what is desired. Machine learning-based models can predict glycated hemoglobin values from routine laboratory tests and can be used as a screening tool to refer a patient for further testing.
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.