ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2024
PyCaret for Predicting Type 2 Diabetes: A Phenotype- and Gender-Based Approach with the "Nurses' Health Study" and the "Health Professionals' Follow-Up Study" Datasets.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 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.
- An interpretable machine learning model for predicting emergence agitation in children: a multicenter development and validation study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for postoperative radiotherapy decision-making in ypN0 breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a real-world study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Machine learning and artificial intelligence for delirium prediction with Electronic Health Records (EHR): a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Enhanced diabetes prediction using pre-trained CNNs, LSTM, and conditional GAN on transformed numerical data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Enhancing WSI image classification with graph convolutional neural networks and model uncertainty modeling.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Skin microbiome-biophysical association: a first integrative approach to classifying Korean skin types and aging groups.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
Predicting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by using phenotypic data with machine learning (ML) techniques has received significant attention in recent years. PyCaret, a low-code automated ML tool that enables the simultaneous application of 16 different algorithms, was used to predict T2DM by using phenotypic variables from the "Nurses' Health Study" and "Health Professionals' Follow-up Study" datasets. Ridge Classifier, Linear Discriminant Analysis, and Logistic Regression (LR) were the best-performing models for the male-only data subset. For the female-only data subset, LR, Gradient Boosting Classifier, and CatBoost Classifier were the strongest models. The AUC, accuracy, and precision were approximately 0.77, 0.70, and 0.70 for males and 0.79, 0.70, and 0.71 for females, respectively. The feature importance plot showed that family history of diabetes (famdb), never having smoked, and high blood pressure (hbp) were the most influential features in females, while famdb, hbp, and currently being a smoker were the major variables in males. In conclusion, PyCaret was used successfully for the prediction of T2DM by simplifying complex ML tasks. Gender differences are important to consider for T2DM prediction. Despite this comprehensive ML tool, phenotypic variables alone may not be sufficient for early T2DM prediction; genotypic variables could also be used in combination for future studies.
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.