ArticleScientific reports2024
An enhanced machine learning algorithm for type 2 diabetes prognosis with a detailed examination of Key correlates.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Prediction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy efficacy in patients with HER2-low breast cancer based on ultrasound radiomics.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- EfficientNetB0-Based End-to-End Diagnostic System for Diabetic Retinopathy Grading and Macular Edema Detection.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to construct a high-performance prediction and diagnosis model for type 2 diabetic retinopathy (DR) and identify key correlates of DR. This study utilized a cross-sectional dataset of 3,000 patients from the People's Liberation Army General Hospital in 2021. Logistic regression was used as the baseline model to compare the prediction performance of the machine learning model and the related factors. The recursive feature elimination cross-validation (RFECV) algorithm was used to select features. Four machine learning models, support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), and gradient boost decision tree (GBDT), were developed to predict DR. The models were optimized using grid search to determine hyperparameters, and the model with superior performance was selected. Shapley-additive explanations (SHAP) were used to analyze the important correlation factors of DR. Among the four machine learning models, the optimal model was GBDT, with predicted accuracy, precision, recall, F1-measure, and AUC values of 0.7883, 0.8299, 0.7539, 0.7901, and 0.8672, respectively. Six key correlates of DR were identified, including rapid micronutrient protein/creatinine measurement, 24-h micronutrient protein, fasting C-peptide, glycosylated hemoglobin, blood urea, and creatinine. The logistic model had 27 risk factors, with an AUC value of 0.8341. A superior prediction model was constructed that identified easily explainable key factors. The number of correlation factors was significantly lower compared to traditional statistical methods, leading to a more accurate prediction performance than the latter.
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.