ArticleCell journal2023
Regularized Machine Learning Models for Prediction of Metabolic Syndrome Using
Article in Cell journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMetabolic syndrome (MetS) is a complex multifactorial disorder that considerably burdens healthcare systems. We aim to classify MetS using regularized machine learning models in the presence of the risk variants of MATERIALS AND
methodsA cohort study was conducted on 2,346 cases and 2,203 controls from eligible Tehran Cardiometabolic Genetic Study (TCGS) participants whose data were collected from 1999 to 2017. We used different regularization approaches [least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), ridge regression (RR), elasticnet (ENET), adaptive LASSO (aLASSO), and adaptive ENET (aENET)] and a classical logistic regression (LR) model to classify MetS and select influential variables that predict MetS. Demographics, clinical features, and common polymorphisms in the
resultsDuring the follow-up period, 50.38% of participants developed MetS. The groups were not similar in terms of baseline characteristics and risk variants. MetS was significantly associated with age, gender, schooling years, body mass index (BMI), and alternate alleles in all the risk variants, as indicated by LR. A comparison of accuracy, AUCROC, and AUC-PR metrics indicated that the regularization models outperformed LR. Regularized machine learning models provided comparable classification performances, whereas the aLASSO model was more parsimonious and selected fewer predictors.
conclusionRegularized machine learning models provided more accurate and parsimonious MetS classifying models. These high-performing diagnostic models can lay the foundation for clinical decision support tools that use genetic and demographical variables to locate individuals at high risk for MetS.
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.