ArticleBMC neurology2024
Comparison of multiple linear regression and machine learning methods in predicting cognitive function in older Chinese type 2 diabetes patients.
Article in BMC neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Arterial Hypertension with Thoracic Spondylophyte Formation: A Secondary Analysis of Cross-Sectional MRI Data from the SHIP Cohort.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Applying machine learning to predict quality ANC determinants in Bangladesh: a BDHS-2022 cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Generalizability of machine learning models for diabetes detection a study with nordic islet transplant and PIMA datasets.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Relationship between ferroptosis and healing of diabetic foot ulcer: a prospective clinical study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has increased dramatically in recent decades, and there are increasing indications that dementia is related to T2D. Previous attempts to analyze such relationships principally relied on traditional multiple linear regression (MLR). However, recently developed machine learning methods (Mach-L) outperform MLR in capturing non-linear relationships. The present study applied four different Mach-L methods to analyze the relationships between risk factors and cognitive function in older T2D patients, seeking to compare the accuracy between MLR and Mach-L in predicting cognitive function and to rank the importance of risks factors for impaired cognitive function in T2D.
methodsWe recruited older T2D between 60-95 years old without other major comorbidities. Demographic factors and biochemistry data were used as independent variables and cognitive function assessment (CFA) was conducted using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment as an independent variable. In addition to traditional MLR, we applied random forest (RF), stochastic gradient boosting (SGB), Naïve Byer's classifier (NB) and eXtreme gradient boosting (XGBoost).
resultsTotally, the test cohort consisted of 197 T2D (98 men and 99 women). Results showed that all ML methods outperformed MLR, with symmetric mean absolute percentage errors for MLR, RF, SGB, NB and XGBoost respectively of 0.61, 0.599, 0.606, 0.599 and 0.2139. Education level, age, frailty score, fasting plasma glucose and body mass index were identified as key factors in descending order of importance.
conclusionIn conclusion, our study demonstrated that RF, SGB, NB and XGBoost are more accurate than MLR for predicting CFA score, and identify education level, age, frailty score, fasting plasma glucose, body fat and body mass index as important risk factors in an older Chinese T2D cohort.
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.