ReviewNutrition & diabetes2024
Optimization of diabetes prediction methods based on combinatorial balancing algorithm.
Review in Nutrition & diabetes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of key cardiovascular disease predictive factors from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study dataset using machine learning-based algorithms.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Development and external validation of an interpretable machine learning model for obesity-depression comorbidity in Korean and US adults.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- SMENN-hybrid: an efficient technique combining the synthetic minority oversampling technique with ensemble learning for diabetes prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Target leakage and the use of diagnostic variables in diabetes prediction models.Nutrition & diabetes · 2025Article
- Machine learning enhanced immunologic risk assessments for solid organ transplantation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes, as a significant disease affecting public health, requires early detection for effective management and intervention. However, imbalanced datasets pose a challenge to accurate diabetes prediction. This imbalance often results in models performing poorly in predicting minority classes, affecting overall diagnostic performance.
objectivesTo address this issue, this study employs a combination of Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) and Random Under-Sampling (RUS) for data balancing and uses Optuna for hyperparameter optimization of machine learning models. This approach aims to fill the gap in current research concerning data balancing and model optimization, thereby improving prediction accuracy and computational efficiency.
methodsFirst, the study uses SMOTE and RUS methods to process the imbalanced diabetes dataset, balancing the data distribution. Then, Optuna is utilized to optimize the hyperparameters of the LightGBM model to enhance its performance. During the experiment, the effectiveness of the proposed methods is evaluated by comparing the training results of the dataset before and after balancing.
resultsThe experimental results show that the enhanced LightGBM-Optuna model improves the accuracy from 97.07% to 97.11%, and the precision from 97.17% to 98.99%. The time required for a single search is only 2.5 seconds. These results demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method in handling imbalanced datasets and optimizing model performance.
conclusionsThe study indicates that combining SMOTE and RUS data balancing algorithms with Optuna for hyperparameter optimization can effectively enhance machine learning models, especially in dealing with imbalanced datasets for diabetes prediction.
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.