ArticleBioData mining2026
Construction of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting gestational diabetes mellitus based on 45 dietary nutrients.
Article in BioData mining, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning (ML)-based model for predicting the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) using 45 dietary nutrients and baseline data.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 3,649 pregnant women from the NHANES database (2007–2018). Baseline data (age, race/ethnicity, BMI, etc.) and 45 dietary nutrients were collected. The Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) was applied after the train-test split to address class imbalance. Feature selection used Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) to reduce multicollinearity and the Boruta algorithm to identify core predictors. Six ML models (XGBoost, LightGBM, RF, SVM, GNB, KNN) were trained. Performance was evaluated via AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F-Beta score (β = 2), and PR-AUC. SHAP analysis clarified feature importance.
resultsCore predictors included race/ethnicity, BMI, protein, dietary fiber, α-carotene, β-carotene, lutein/zeaxanthin, folate (DFE), calcium, phosphorus, zinc, potassium, alcohol intake, educational level, and smoking status. XGBoost performed best in the validation set (accuracy: 93.1%, F-Beta: 0.943, AUC: 0.966, sensitivity: 97.5%, specificity: 86.7%, PR-AUC: 0.967), followed by LightGBM (accuracy: 92.6%) and RF (accuracy: 91.4%). GNB was poorest (accuracy: 57.3%, AUC: 0.658). SHAP identified educational level, race/ethnicity, lycopene, and smoking status as top contributors.
conclusionML models integrating demographics and 45 dietary nutrients accurately predict GDM. XGBoost, LightGBM, and RF excel, with XGBoost being most effective, supporting early GDM detection in clinical practice.
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.