ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2023
Value of machine learning algorithms for predicting diabetes risk: A subset analysis from a real-world retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk prediction models for venous thromboembolism in lung cancer patients after surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Development and validation of machine-learning diagnostic models for identifying frailty in older adults with tuberculosis: a multicentre observational study protocol.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Observational
- Article
- Utility of long-term systolic blood pressure variability for predicting the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Recent updates to understand the heterogeneity of type 2 diabetes mellitus.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
AIMS/
introductionTo compare the application value of different machine learning (ML) algorithms for diabetes risk prediction. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a 3-year retrospective cohort study with a total of 3,687 participants being included in the data analysis. Modeling variable screening and predictive model building were carried out using logistic regression (LR) analysis and 10-fold cross-validation, respectively. In total, six different ML algorithms, including random forests, light gradient boosting machine, extreme gradient boosting, adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), multi-layer perceptrons and gaussian naive bayes were used for model construction. Model performance was mainly evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The best performing ML model was selected for comparison with the traditional LR model and visualized using Shapley additive explanations.
resultsA total of eight risk factors most associated with the development of diabetes were identified by univariate and multivariate LR analysis, and they were visualized in the form of a nomogram. Among the six different ML models, the random forests model had the best predictive performance. After 10-fold cross-validation, its optimal model has an area under the receiver operating characteristic value of 0.855 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.823-0.886) in the training set and 0.835 (95% CI 0.779-0.892) in the test set. In the traditional LR model, its area under the receiver operating characteristic value is 0.840 (95% CI 0.814-0.866) in the training set and 0.834 (95% CI 0.785-0.884) in the test set.
conclusionsIn the real-world epidemiological research, the combination of traditional variable screening and ML algorithm to construct a diabetes risk prediction model has satisfactory clinical application value.
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.