ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Developing and evaluating machine learning-based risk models for metabolic syndrome among nurses: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Performance of Mammogram-Based AI Risk Model in Predicting Subsequent Breast Cancer in Women with a Prior History of Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Metabolic syndrome is a group of risk factors that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Nurses have a higher risk of metabolic syndrome due to high work pressure and irregular lifestyle. Early recognition of metabolic syndrome is essential to prevent related complications and improve nurse health. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was used to collect valid questionnaire data of 900 nurses. Univariate analysis and multivariate Logistic regression analysis were used to screen the key variables. Logistic regression, random forest, XGBoost, support vector machine and neural network were used to predict and evaluate the performance of the model. SHAP values were also used to explain the importance of model features. In addition, 227 nurses were collected for external validation of the optimal model. Results: The random forest model had the best performance on the test set [AUC = 0.890 (0.855-0.925)], and the AUC of the external validation was 0.80 [0.762-0.838]. Among them, BMI, job burnout, shift work, age and other 9 characteristics were the key factors affecting the prediction. Discussion: The superior performance of the random forest model and identification of BMI and job burnout as core predictors provide evidence-based support for integrating machine learning-based screening into nurse occupational health policies, enabling early identification and targeted intervention for high-risk nurses. Conclusion: This study successfully established the prediction model of metabolic syndrome in nurses. The random forest model has high accuracy. The key factors identified provide theoretical support for early intervention, provide quantitative tools for identifying high-risk nurses, support personalized health intervention, and help to improve the overall health level and work efficiency of nurses.
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.