Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41908984›Full record

ArticleDiscover analytics2026

Flexible statistical approaches for modeling nonlinear relationships in diabetes prediction using splines, Bayesian kernel regression and Bayesian regression trees.

Thimani Dananjana Ranathungage, Harsha Blumer, Saman Muthukumarana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Discover analytics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thimani Dananjana RanathungageDepartment of Statistics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, R3T 2N2 Manitoba Canada.
Harsha BlumerDepartment of Statistics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, R3T 2N2 Manitoba Canada.
Saman MuthukumaranaDepartment of Statistics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, R3T 2N2 Manitoba Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modeling nonlinear relationships is a fundamental challenge in statistical analysis, particularly when predictors exhibit complex and interacting effects on outcomes. This study compares three flexible methods for capturing such structures: restricted cubic spline regression (RCS), Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR), and Bayesian additive regression trees (BART). RCS enables explicit modeling of nonlinear associations via spline basis functions, BKMR leverages kernel functions within a Bayesian framework to capture nonlinear and non-additive effects, and BART provides a nonparametric ensemble approach that flexibly accommodates interactions and nonlinearities without prior specification. To demonstrate the utility of these methods, we apply them to the Pima Indians diabetes dataset, consisting of 768 observations of women at high risk of type II diabetes. After data preprocessing, including imputation and outlier handling, each method was fitted and evaluated using six performance measures. RCS and BKMR identified glucose, insulin, age, and skin thickness as significant predictors, while BART yielded the best predictive performance (AUC [Formula: see text] 97%). Predictor-response functions were used to enhance clinical interpretability. These findings illustrate that a methodology capable of capturing nonlinear effects can substantially improve prediction accuracy in epidemiological studies.

Indexed as

Bayesian additive regression treesBayesian kernel machine regressionNonlinear effectsRestricted cubic splines regression

Identifiers

PMID41908984
PMCPMC13023362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.