ArticleScientific reports2025
Enhancing AI-driven forecasting of diabetes burden: a comparative analysis of deep learning and statistical models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Healthcare Capabilities: A Systematic Review and Research Directions.F1000Research · 2025Pooled it
- Nanostructured electrode materials and flexible-substrate engineering for wearable multi-analyte biosensors in diabetes monitoring and personalized care: a comprehensive review.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Review
- The power of machine learning models in predicting gestational diabetes mellitus.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate forecasting of diabetes burden is essential for healthcare planning, resource allocation, and policy-making. While deep learning models have demonstrated superior predictive capabilities, their real-world applicability is constrained by computational complexity and data quality challenges. This study evaluates the trade-offs between predictive accuracy, robustness, and computational efficiency in diabetes forecasting. Four forecasting models were selected based on their ability to capture temporal dependencies and handle missing healthcare data: Transformer with Variational Autoencoder (VAE), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), and AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA). Annual data on Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), Deaths, and Prevalence from 1990 to 2021 were used to train (1990-2014) and evaluate (2015-2021) the models. Performance was measured using Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE). Robustness tests introduced noise and missing data, while computational efficiency was assessed in terms of training time, inference speed, and memory usage. Statistical significance was analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests. The Transformer-VAE model achieved the highest predictive accuracy (MAE: 0.425, RMSE: 0.501) and demonstrated superior resilience to noisy and incomplete data ([Formula: see text]). LSTM effectively captured short-term patterns but struggled with long-term dependencies, while GRU, though computationally efficient, exhibited higher error rates. ARIMA, despite being resource-efficient, showed limited capability in modeling long-term trends, indicating potential benefits in hybrid approaches. While Transformer-VAE provides the most accurate diabetes burden forecasting, its high computational cost and interpretability challenges limit its scalability in resource-constrained settings. These findings highlight the potential of deep learning models for healthcare forecasting, while underscoring the need for further validation before integration into real-world public health decision-making.
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.