ReviewFrontiers in public health2026
Machine learning-based risk prediction models for type 2 diabetes in primary care: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major global public health challenge, with many individuals remaining undiagnosed until complications develop. Machine learning (ML)-based risk prediction models have the potential to support early identification of individuals at increased risk using primary care data. However, the characteristics and applicability of these models within primary care settings have not been comprehensively mapped. Objective: To systematically map the available evidence on machine learning (ML)-based models for risk prediction, early detection, and case-finding of type 2 diabetes in primary care, and to summarize their characteristics, including predictors, modeling approaches, validation strategies, and model performance. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for English-language studies published between January 2011 and December 2025. Primary research describing ML-based risk prediction models developed, validated, evaluated, or intended for implementation in primary care was eligible. Data were extracted using a structured charting form and synthesized descriptively. Results: The search identified 186 records, of which four studies met the inclusion criteria. The included studies were conducted in Sweden, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Hong Kong between 2024 and 2025. Three studies focused on model development and internal validation, while one externally validated previously developed non-laboratory prediction models. A range of ML approaches was identified, including stochastic gradient boosting, federated learning, multilayer perceptron, random forest, support vector classification, naïve Bayes, and decision tree algorithms, with logistic regression commonly used as a comparator. Models primarily utilized routinely collected demographic, anthropometric, lifestyle, and electronic health record-derived variables. Most studies reported moderate-to-good predictive performance; however, evidence regarding external validation, calibration, and prospective implementation within routine primary care remained limited. Conclusion: Evidence on ML-based risk prediction models for T2DM applicable to primary care remains limited despite growing interest in AI for diabetes prediction. Existing models demonstrate promising predictive performance using routinely available clinical information, but greater emphasis is needed on external validation, calibration, prospective implementation, and evaluation across diverse primary care populations before widespread clinical adoption. Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mbfrz.
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.