ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Predicting diabetes in adults: identifying important features in unbalanced data over a 5-year cohort study using machine learning algorithm.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning and artificial intelligence in type 2 diabetes prediction: a comprehensive 33-year bibliometric and literature analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Optimizing stroke mortality prediction: a comparative study of sampling, cost-sensitive learning, and threshold adjustment.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- An interpretable progressive residual network for automated multiclass diabetes diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Amyloid-beta statuses prediction with free water MR imaging features in Alzheimer's disease using machine learning models.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Integrating ensemble machine learning and multi-omics approaches to identify Dp44mT as a novel anti-Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Predicting Stroke Risk Using Machine Learning: A Data-Driven Approach to Early Detection and Prevention.Stroke research and treatment · 2025Article
- Article
- Enhancing Community-Based Nursing Decision Support: Machine Learning Models for Diabetes Risk Prediction Using Home Health Nursing Notes.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.)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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImbalanced datasets pose significant challenges in predictive modeling, leading to biased outcomes and reduced model reliability. This study addresses data imbalance in diabetes prediction using machine learning techniques. Utilizing data from the Fasa Adult Cohort Study (FACS) with a 5-year follow-up of 10,000 participants, we developed predictive models for Type 2 diabetes.
methodsWe employed various data-level and algorithm-level interventions, including SMOTE, ADASYN, SMOTEENN, Random Over Sampling and KMeansSMOTE, paired with Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Decision Tree and Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) classifier. We evaluated model performance using F1 score, AUC, and G-means-metrics chosen to provide a comprehensive assessment of model accuracy, discrimination ability, and overall balance in performance, particularly in the context of imbalanced datasets.
resultsour study uncovered key factors influencing diabetes risk and evaluated the performance of various machine learning models. Feature importance analysis revealed that the most influential predictors of diabetes differ between males and females. For females, the most important factors are triglyceride (TG), basal metabolic rate (BMR), and total cholesterol (CHOL), whereas for males, the key predictors are body Mass Index (BMI), serum glutamate Oxaloacetate Transaminase (SGOT), and Gamma-Glutamyl (GGT). Across the entire dataset, BMI remains the most important variable, followed by SGOT, BMR, and energy intake. These insights suggest that gender-specific risk profiles should be considered in diabetes prevention and management strategies. In terms of model performance, our results show that ADASYN with MLP classifier achieved an F1 score of 82.17 ± 3.38, AUC of 89.61 ± 2.09, and G-means of 89.15 ± 2.31. SMOTE with MLP followed closely with an F1 score of 79.85 ± 3.91, AUC of 89.7 ± 2.54, and G-means of 89.31 ± 2.78. The SMOTEENN with Random Forest combination achieved an F1 score of 78.27 ± 1.54, AUC of 87.18 ± 1.12, and G-means of 86.47 ± 1.28.
conclusionThese combinations effectively address class imbalance, improving the accuracy and reliability of diabetes predictions. The findings highlight the importance of using appropriate data-balancing techniques in medical 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.