ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Identification of BMI-related high-risk feature combinations for diabetes among young adults with normal baseline fasting plasma glucose using interpretable machine learning: a health check-up cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Body mass index (BMI) is an easily obtainable indicator for diabetes risk screening, but its residual risk value among young adults with normal fasting plasma glucose (FPG) remains insufficiently understood. This cohort study investigated the association between BMI and incident diabetes, its nonlinear risk pattern, and BMI-related risk structures among young adults with normal baseline FPG. Data were obtained from the Rich Healthcare Group health check-up database in China. Participants aged <40 years without diabetes at baseline, with complete BMI data and at least one follow-up visit, were included; those with baseline FPG <5.6 mmol/L were defined as the primary analytic population. Cox regression and restricted cubic spline analysis were used to examine the association between BMI and incident diabetes. Four machine learning models were compared, with logistic regression selected as the primary interpretable model and XGBoost used as an exploratory nonlinear model. SHapley Additive exPlanations were applied to interpret model-derived variable contributions. A total of 103,693 participants were included, and 266 incident diabetes events occurred during a median follow-up of 2.99 years. BMI was independently associated with incident diabetes in the multivariable Cox model (HR = 1.284, 95% CI: 1.250-1.319; P <0.001). Restricted cubic spline analysis showed a significant nonlinear association, with risk increasing more steeply beyond approximately 28 kg/m². In the validation set, logistic regression and XGBoost achieved ROC-AUC values of 0.812 and 0.817, respectively; however, their low PR-AUC values indicated limited ability to identify true positive cases under the very low event rate. SHAP analysis identified BMI as the most influential predictor in the exploratory XGBoost model and suggested possible model-derived joint contribution patterns involving triglycerides and systolic blood pressure, but formal Cox-based interaction testing did not confirm statistically significant multiplicative interactions. These findings suggest that BMI-related diabetes risk among normoglycemic young adults is nonlinear and embedded within a broader metabolic risk structure. Combining conventional regression with interpretable machine learning may support earlier identification and refined risk stratification of young adults at increased diabetes risk before fasting glucose becomes abnormal.
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.