ReviewPloS one2024
Hybrid feature selection and classification technique for early prediction and severity of diabetes type 2.
Review in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning and artificial intelligence in type 2 diabetes prediction: a comprehensive 33-year bibliometric and literature analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Optimizing Feature Selection and Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Prediabetes Risk: Comparative Study.JMIR bioinformatics and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Margin weighted robust discriminant score for feature selection in imbalanced gene expression classification.PloS one · 2025Article
- Expression of Concern: Hybrid feature selection and classification technique for early prediction and severity of diabetes type 2.PloS one · 2025Article
- Analyzing classification and feature selection strategies for diabetes prediction across diverse diabetes datasets.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetes prediction is an ongoing study topic in which medical specialists are attempting to forecast the condition with greater precision. Diabetes typically stays lethargic, and on the off chance that patients are determined to have another illness, like harm to the kidney vessels, issues with the retina of the eye, or a heart issue, it can cause metabolic problems and various complexities in the body. Various worldwide learning procedures, including casting a ballot, supporting, and sacking, have been applied in this review. The Engineered Minority Oversampling Procedure (Destroyed), along with the K-overlay cross-approval approach, was utilized to achieve class evening out and approve the discoveries. Pima Indian Diabetes (PID) dataset is accumulated from the UCI Machine Learning (UCI ML) store for this review, and this dataset was picked. A highlighted engineering technique was used to calculate the influence of lifestyle factors. A two-phase classification model has been developed to predict insulin resistance using the Sequential Minimal Optimisation (SMO) and SMOTE approaches together. The SMOTE technique is used to preprocess data in the model's first phase, while SMO classes are used in the second phase. All other categorization techniques were outperformed by bagging decision trees in terms of Misclassification Error rate, Accuracy, Specificity, Precision, Recall, F1 measures, and ROC curve. The model was created using a combined SMOTE and SMO strategy, which achieved 99.07% correction with 0.1 ms of runtime. The suggested system's result is to enhance the classifier's performance in spotting illness early.
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.