ArticleScientific reports2026
An XGBoost-based predictive framework for diabetes mellitus multi-classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus is a persistent metabolic condition that requires accurate and early diagnosis to prevent severe complications. This paper proposes an Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)-based predictive framework for multi-classification of diabetes mellitus into non-diabetic, pre-diabetic, and diabetic classes. After standardization and exclusion of non-clinical identifiers, Duplicate clinical records were removed from the original dataset, leaving 826 unique records. Comprehensive preprocessing pipeline used a stratified 70:30 train-test split and five-fold cross-validation; scaling and resampling were performed only within training partitions. Experimental results on the original dataset XGBoost achieved an accuracy of 99.60%. Both Random Over Sampling (ROS) and Syntenic minority over sampling technique (SMOTE) have also achieved 99.60% accuracy but provided improved generalization at the expense of higher computational cost. In contrast, Random Under Sampling (RUS) and Cluster Centroids (CC) reduced accuracy to 92.74% and 90.32%, respectively due to information loss. Across five folds, the original XGBoost model achieved 98.79 ± 1.13% accuracy. Benchmarking against Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, and K-Nearest Neighbors showed that XGBoost provided the strongest performance. These findings highlight the effectiveness of XGBoost while emphasizing classification accuracy in multiclass diabetes prediction systems.
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.