ArticleScientific reports2022
A correlation-based feature analysis of physical examination indicators can help predict the overall underlying health status using machine learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- DRPM: An advanced predictive model for early diabetes detection and risk stratification.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2025Article
- Postoperative symptom network analysis in non-small cell lung cancer patients: a cross-sectional study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Observational
- Red blood cell count and cystatin C as the specific biomarkers for diabetic retinopathy from diabetes mellitus: a case-control study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A 3D in vitro model for assessing the influence of intraocular lens: Posterior lens capsule interactions on lens epithelial cell responses.Experimental eye research · 2024Article
- Relationship chains of subhealth physical examination indicators: a cross-sectional study using the PLS-SEM approach.Scientific reports · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a systematic investigation of the correlations between physical examination indicators (PEIs) is lacking, most PEIs are currently independently used for disease warning. This results in the general physical examination having limited diagnostic values. Here, we systematically analyzed the correlations in 221 PEIs between healthy and 34 unhealthy statuses in 803,614 individuals in China. Specifically, the study population included 711,928 healthy participants, 51,341 patients with hypertension, 12,878 patients with diabetes, and 34,997 patients with other unhealthy statuses. We found rich relevance between PEIs in the healthy physical status (7662 significant correlations, 31.5%). However, in the disease conditions, the PEI correlations changed. We focused on the difference in PEIs between healthy and 35 unhealthy physical statuses and found 1239 significant PEI differences, suggesting that they could be candidate disease markers. Finally, we established machine learning algorithms to predict health status using 15-16% of the PEIs through feature extraction, reaching a 66-99% accurate prediction, depending on the physical status. This new reference of the PEI correlation provides rich information for chronic disease diagnosis. The developed machine learning algorithms can fundamentally affect the practice of general physical examinations.
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.