ArticlePloS one2026
Classification of pre-metabolic syndrome and metabolic syndrome using machine learning and routine clinical variables in Thai adults.
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundMetabolic syndrome (MetS) and pre-metabolic syndrome (pre-MetS) are increasingly recognized as important stages of metabolic dysfunction in Asian populations. Conventional diagnostic approaches rely on fixed threshold criteria, whereas metabolic dysfunction occurs along a continuous spectrum. Machine learning (ML) can integrate multidimensional clinical data and model nonlinear relationships among clinical variables, potentially providing complementary information for distinguishing metabolic states. This study evaluated ten ML algorithms for distinguishing pre-MetS from MetS in Thai adults and identified features contributing most strongly to model-based classification.
methodsIn this single-center retrospective cross-sectional study, 657 Thai adults were classified as pre-MetS (n = 359) or MetS (n = 298). Pre-MetS was operationally defined as the presence of at least one IDF-defined metabolic abnormality without fulfilling the complete International Diabetes Federation (IDF) criteria for MetS. Twenty-four clinical and biochemical features selected using the Boruta algorithm were evaluated across ten supervised ML algorithms. Models were trained using an 80% training dataset with repeated 10-fold cross-validation (10 repetitions) for hyperparameter tuning and subsequently evaluated using an independent 20% hold-out test dataset (n = 132). All preprocessing steps, including z-score normalization and feature selection, were performed exclusively within the training dataset to prevent data leakage.
resultsAmong the ten evaluated algorithms, ensemble methods achieved the highest classification performance. XGBoost demonstrated the highest discrimination (AUC = 0.986, 95% CI: 0.970-0.997), highest accuracy (0.932, 95% CI: 0.885-0.969), and lowest Brier score (0.050, 95% CI: 0.026-0.080), followed by the neural network (AUC = 0.948, 95% CI: 0.906-0.983) and random forest (AUC = 0.942, 95% CI: 0.905-0.974). SHAP analysis identified systolic blood pressure, waist circumference, fasting plasma glucose, sex, and TyG-WHtR as the features contributing most strongly to XGBoost classification. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated progressively reduced discrimination after excluding predictors that overlapped with MetS diagnostic components and related derived indices, although substantial discrimination was retained after removal of these overlapping features.
conclusionsAmong the ten evaluated algorithms, classification performance varied substantially across models, with XGBoost achieving the highest performance and support vector machine models showing the lowest discrimination. These findings indicate that algorithm choice may influence classification performance in metabolic classification tasks. However, the observed performance should be interpreted cautiously because several influential predictors overlap with, or are derived from, the MetS diagnostic criteria, and the study lacked external validation. The findings are therefore exploratory and require validation in multicenter cohorts using predictor sets that minimize overlap with the diagnostic definition before clinical implementation can be considered.
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.