ArticleBioData mining2024
A machine learning approach using conditional normalizing flow to address extreme class imbalance problems in personal health records.
Article in BioData mining, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strategies for Class-Imbalanced Learning in Multi-Sensor Medical Imaging.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Generative artificial intelligence in diabetes healthcare.iScience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSupervised machine learning models have been widely used to predict and get insight into diseases by classifying patients based on personal health records. However, a class imbalance is an obstacle that disrupts the training of the models. In this study, we aimed to address class imbalance with a conditional normalizing flow model, one of the deep-learning-based semi-supervised models for anomaly detection. It is the first introduction of the normalizing flow algorithm for tabular biomedical data.
methodsWe collected personal health records from South Korean citizens (n = 706), featuring genetic data obtained from direct-to-customer service (microarray chip), medical health check-ups, and lifestyle log data. Based on the health check-up data, six chronic diseases were labeled (obesity, diabetes, hypertriglyceridemia, dyslipidemia, liver dysfunction, and hypertension). After preprocessing, supervised classification models and semi-supervised anomaly detection models, including conditional normalizing flow, were evaluated for the classification of diabetes, which had extreme target imbalance (about 2%), based on AUROC and AUPRC. In addition, we evaluated their performance under the assumption of insufficient collection for patients with other chronic diseases by undersampling disease-affected samples.
resultsWhile LightGBM (the best-performing model among supervised classification models) showed AUPRC 0.16 and AUROC 0.82, conditional normalizing flow achieved AUPRC 0.34 and AUROC 0.83 during fifty evaluations of the classification of diabetes, whose base rate was very low, at 0.02. Moreover, conditional normalizing flow performed better than the supervised model under a few disease-affected data numbers for the other five chronic diseases - obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, dyslipidemia, liver dysfunction, and hypertension. For example, while LightGBM performed AUPRC 0.20 and AUROC 0.75, conditional normalizing flow showed AUPRC 0.30 and AUROC 0.74 when predicting obesity, while undersampling disease-affected samples (positive undersampling) lowered the base rate to 0.02.
conclusionsOur research suggests the utility of conditional normalizing flow, particularly when the available cases are limited, for predicting chronic diseases using personal health records. This approach offers an effective solution to deal with sparse data and extreme class imbalances commonly encountered in the biomedical context.
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.