ArticleBMC public health2025
Machine learning with the body roundness index and associated indicators: a new approach to predicting metabolic syndrome.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Machine learning models for predicting metabolic syndrome to support clinical decision-making in ART-treated adults living with HIV.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMetabolic syndrome (MetS) is strongly associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Traditional invasive diagnostic methods are costly, inconvenient, and unsuitable for large-scale screening. Developing a non-invasive, accurate prediction model is clinically significant for early MetS detection and prevention.
objectiveTo develop a non-invasive prediction model for MetS by integrating body roundness index (BRI), gender, age, height, and waist circumference with machine learning algorithms, and to validate its generalizability across different ethnic groups.
methodsWe trained and validated machine learning models using a retrospective health examination dataset from Central South University (D1, n = 268,942) and externally validated them on a European cohort (D2, n = 60,799). Five non-invasive features-BRI, waist circumference, height, age, and gender-were used as predictors. MetS was diagnosed based on the IDF criteria. Ten machine learning algorithms were evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation. Model performance was assessed via accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, F1-score, precision, ROC AUC and Brier score. Additional analyses included threshold sensitivity testing (0.1-0.9) and ablation of central adiposity features to evaluate robustness and generalizability.
resultsIn the D1, the prevalence of MetS was 18.26%. In the D2, the prevalence was 9.07%. Among all predictors, BRI demonstrated the strongest correlation with MetS (r = 0.585 in D1; r = 0.426 in D2; both P < 0.01). Compared with a rule-based baseline (F1 score = 0.50), all machine learning models achieved superior performance. At the default 0.5 threshold, XGBoost attained an AUC of 0.94, sensitivity of 0.96, and F1 score of 0.53 in D2. Further threshold adjustment improved XGBoost's precision from 0.36 to 0.43, while maintaining high sensitivity (0.87). Model performance declined markedly when central adiposity features (BRI and WC) were removed, highlighting the critical predictive value of BRI. These findings support the utility of BRI-integrated ML approaches for scalable, non-invasive MetS screening.
conclusionsThe combination of BRI and machine learning provides a non-invasive and effective method for predicting MetS and offers a promising strategy for its early prevention. Machine learning models demonstrate significant advantages over baseline rule-based models in terms of sensitivity and predictive performance.
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.