ArticlePloS one2025
Comprehensive framework for thyroid disorder diagnosis: Integrating advanced feature selection, genetic algorithms, and machine learning for enhanced accuracy and other performance matrices.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable AI machine learning framework for chronic kidney disease prediction utilizing electronic health records.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Review
- Thyroid disease detection using enhanced extreme learning machine based on drop-connect method.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence model as a tool to predict prediabetes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing the precision of male fertility diagnostics through bio inspired optimization techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Big data dimensionality reduction-based supervised machine learning algorithms for NASH diagnosis.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Non-invasive detection of choroidal melanoma via tear-derived protein corona on gold nanoparticles: a machine learning approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thyroid hormones control crucial physiological activities, such as metabolism, oxidative stress, erythropoiesis, thermoregulation, and organ development. Hormonal imbalances may cause serious conditions like cognitive impairment, depression, and nervous system damage. Traditional diagnostic techniques, based on hormone level measurements (TSH, T3, FT4, T4, and FTI), are usually lengthy and laborious. This study uses machine learning (ML) algorithms and feature selection based on GA to improve the accuracy and efficiency of diagnosing thyroid disorders using the UCI thyroid dataset. Five ML algorithms-LR, RF, SVM, AB, and DT- were tested using two paradigms: (1) default classifiers and (2) hybrid GA-ML models- GA-RF, GA-LR, GA-SVM, GA-DT, and GA-AB. The data pre-processed included handling missing values, feature scaling, and correlation analysis. In this case, the performance metrics used for model evaluation are accuracy, F1 Score, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and Cohen's Kappa with 80% of the dataset to train the model and the rest 20% used to test it. Among the non-hybrid models, RF achieved the highest accuracy, which was 93.93%. The hybrid GA-RF model outperformed all others, achieving a remarkable accuracy of 97.21%, along with superior metrics across all the evaluated parameters. These findings highlight the diagnostic potential of the GA-RF model in providing faster, more accurate, and reliable thyroid disorder detection. The research illustrated the potential of the hybrid GA-ML approaches to improving the clinical diagnostic process while proposing a strong and scalable approach towards thyroid disorder identification.
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.