ArticleAIMS public health2024
Discriminating insulin resistance in middle-aged nondiabetic women using machine learning approaches.
Article in AIMS public health, 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.
- Development and external validation of machine learning models to predict insulin resistance among iron-deficient children and adolescents.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- The Comparison of Insulin Resistance Between Normal and Early Menopause Women Younger than Fifty Years Old by Machine Learning Methods.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We employed machine learning algorithms to discriminate insulin resistance (IR) in middle-aged nondiabetic women. Methods: The data was from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2007-2018). The study subjects were 2084 nondiabetic women aged 45-64. The analysis included 48 predictors. We randomly divided the data into training (n = 1667) and testing (n = 417) datasets. Four machine learning techniques were employed to discriminate IR: extreme gradient boosting (XGBoosting), random forest (RF), gradient boosting machine (GBM), and decision tree (DT). The area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and F1 score were compared as performance metrics to select the optimal technique. Results: The XGBoosting algorithm achieved a relatively high AUC of 0.93 in the training dataset and 0.86 in the testing dataset to discriminate IR using 48 predictors and was followed by the RF, GBM, and DT models. After selecting the top five predictors to build models, the XGBoost algorithm with the AUC of 0.90 (training dataset) and 0.86 (testing dataset) remained the optimal prediction model. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values revealed the associations between the five predictors and IR, namely BMI (strongly positive impact on IR), fasting glucose (strongly positive), HDL-C (medium negative), triglycerides (medium positive), and glycohemoglobin (medium positive). The threshold values for identifying IR were 29 kg/m Conclusion: The XGBoosting algorithm demonstrated superior performance metrics for discriminating IR in middle-aged nondiabetic women, with BMI, glucose, HDL-C, glycohemoglobin, and triglycerides as the top five predictors.
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.