ArticleScientific reports2025
Development of a machine learning-based interface for insulin dependency prediction using clinical data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus is a major global health burden, and early identification of insulin dependency is important for timely intervention. This study developed an artificial intelligence-based diagnostic system using a real-world clinical dataset of 100 anonymized patient records, collected with ethical approval and informed consent. The dataset included demographic, lifestyle, and biochemical variables such as glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood sugar (FBS), and postprandial blood sugar (PPBS). After preprocessing to handle missing values, normalize continuous variables, and encode categorical features, four machine learning models were implemented: Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, and LightGBM, along with ensemble based, combined approaches. Model evaluation was performed using 5-fold cross-validation with accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score as metrics. XGBoost achieved the highest performance (accuracy 0.88, precision 0.86, recall 0.90, F1-score 0.88), followed by LightGBM (accuracy 0.85, F1-score 0.84), Random Forest (accuracy 0.82, F1-score 0.81), and Logistic Regression (accuracy 0.76, F1-score 0.74). The most predictive features were PPBS and HbA1c, consistent with clinical understanding. While results are promising, they reflect a single-center dataset of 100 records, and should be interpreted as preliminary, further study will include external validation on larger, multi-site cohorts prior to clinical adoption.
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.