ArticlePloS one2024
Exploring the diagnostic performance of machine learning in prediction of metabolic phenotypes focusing on thyroid function.
Article in PloS one, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we employed various machine learning models to predict metabolic phenotypes, focusing on thyroid function, using a dataset from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2007 to 2012. Our analysis utilized laboratory parameters relevant to thyroid function or metabolic dysregulation in addition to demographic features, aiming to uncover potential associations between thyroid function and metabolic phenotypes by various machine learning methods. Multinomial Logistic Regression performed best to identify the relationship between thyroid function and metabolic phenotypes, achieving an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.818, followed closely by Neural Network (AUROC: 0.814). Following the above, the performance of Random Forest, Boosted Trees, and K Nearest Neighbors was inferior to the first two methods (AUROC 0.811, 0.811, and 0.786, respectively). In Random Forest, homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance, serum uric acid, serum albumin, gamma glutamyl transferase, and triiodothyronine/thyroxine ratio were positioned in the upper ranks of variable importance. These results highlight the potential of machine learning in understanding complex relationships in health data. However, it's important to note that model performance may vary depending on data characteristics and specific requirements. Furthermore, we emphasize the significance of accounting for sampling weights in complex survey data analysis and the potential benefits of incorporating additional variables to enhance model accuracy and insights. Future research can explore advanced methodologies combining machine learning, sample weights, and expanded variable sets to further advance survey data analysis.
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.