Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36220875›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Gradient boosting decision tree becomes more reliable than logistic regression in predicting probability for diabetes with big data.

Hiroe Seto, Asuka Oyama, Shuji Kitora, Hiroshi Toki, Ryohei Yamamoto, Jun'ichi Kotoku, Akihiro Haga, Maki Shinzawa, Miyae Yamakawa, Sakiko Fukui and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. An interpretable machine learning model for preoperative prediction of renal mass malignancy.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Hiroe SetoHealth Care Division, Health and Counseling Center, Osaka University, Osaka, 560-0043, Japan.
Asuka OyamaHealth Care Division, Health and Counseling Center, Osaka University, Osaka, 560-0043, Japan. ooyama@hacc.osaka-u.ac.jp.
Shuji KitoraHealth Care Division, Health and Counseling Center, Osaka University, Osaka, 560-0043, Japan.
Hiroshi TokiHealth Care Division, Health and Counseling Center, Osaka University, Osaka, 560-0043, Japan.
Ryohei YamamotoHealth Care Division, Health and Counseling Center, Osaka University, Osaka, 560-0043, Japan.
Jun'ichi KotokuHealth Care Division, Health and Counseling Center, Osaka University, Osaka, 560-0043, Japan.
Akihiro HagaHealth Care Division, Health and Counseling Center, Osaka University, Osaka, 560-0043, Japan.
Maki ShinzawaDepartment of Nephrology, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Miyae YamakawaDivision of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Sakiko FukuiDivision of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Toshiki MoriyamaHealth Care Division, Health and Counseling Center, Osaka University, Osaka, 560-0043, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We sought to verify the reliability of machine learning (ML) in developing diabetes prediction models by utilizing big data. To this end, we compared the reliability of gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) and logistic regression (LR) models using data obtained from the Kokuho-database of the Osaka prefecture, Japan. To develop the models, we focused on 16 predictors from health checkup data from April 2013 to December 2014. A total of 277,651 eligible participants were studied. The prediction models were developed using a light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), which is an effective GBDT implementation algorithm, and LR. Their reliabilities were measured based on expected calibration error (ECE), negative log-likelihood (Logloss), and reliability diagrams. Similarly, their classification accuracies were measured in the area under the curve (AUC). We further analyzed their reliabilities while changing the sample size for training. Among the 277,651 participants, 15,900 (7978 males and 7922 females) were newly diagnosed with diabetes within 3 years. LightGBM (LR) achieved an ECE of 0.0018 ± 0.00033 (0.0048 ± 0.00058), a Logloss of 0.167 ± 0.00062 (0.172 ± 0.00090), and an AUC of 0.844 ± 0.0025 (0.826 ± 0.0035). From sample size analysis, the reliability of LightGBM became higher than LR when the sample size increased more than [Formula: see text]. Thus, we confirmed that GBDT provides a more reliable model than that of LR in the development of diabetes prediction models using big data. ML could potentially produce a highly reliable diabetes prediction model, a helpful tool for improving lifestyle and preventing diabetes.

Indexed as

Big DataDiabetes MellitusDecision TreesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID36220875
PMCPMC9553945

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.