ArticleFood science & nutrition2025
A Biomarker-Driven and Interpretable Machine Learning Model for Diagnosing Diabetes Mellitus.
Article in Food science & nutrition, 2025. 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 Internal Validation of an Explainable Machine Learning Model for Physical Activity Adherence Among Community-Dwelling Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Federated multimodal AI for precision-equitable diabetes care.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetes is one of the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Developing earlier and more accurate diagnosis methods is crucial for clinical prevention and treatment of diabetes. Here, data on biochemical indicators and physiological characteristics of 4335 participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database from 2017 to 2020 were collected. After data preprocessing, the dataset was randomly divided into a training set (70%) and a test set (30%); then the Boruta algorithm was used to screen feature indicators on the training set. Next, three machine learning algorithms, including Random Forest (RF), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) were employed to build predictive models through 10-fold cross-validation on the training dataset, followed by performance evaluation on the test dataset. The RF model exhibited the best performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.958 (95% CI: 0.943-0.973), a recall of 0.897, a specificity and F1 score of 0.916 and 0.747, respectively, and an overall accuracy of 0.913. Moreover, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and Partial Dependency Plots (PDP) were applied to interpret the RF model to analyze the risk factors for diabetes. Glycohemoglobin, glucose, fasting glucose, age, cholesterol, osmolality, BMI, blood urea nitrogen, and insulin were found to exert the greatest influence on the prevalence of diabetes. Collectively, the RF model has considerable application prospects for the diagnosis of diabetes and can serve as a valuable supplementary tool for clinical diagnosis and risk assessment in diabetes.
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.