ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
An interpretable prediction model for non-invasive identification of the phlegm-dampness constitution based on machine learning.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), constitutional types influence disease susceptibility. Phlegm-Dampness Constitution (PDC), a common subtype, has been linked to elevated risk of metabolic diseases. Therefore, early identification of PDC is essential for implementing early interventions and disease prevention strategies. This study aimed to develop and evaluate interpretable machine learning models for the identification of PDC based on routinely available clinical variables and dietary preferences. Methods: We analyzed 139 participants (96 PDC and 43 Balanced Constitution [BC]). Seventeen clinical and biochemical variables were screened using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression, and logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, and Extreme Gradient Boosting classifiers were developed. The dataset was divided into training and test sets, and three-fold cross-validation was applied. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), cut-off value, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), while model outputs were interpreted using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Results: The logistic regression model using waist circumference and triglycerides (TG), with age and body mass index (BMI) as covariates, achieved an AUC of 0.983, with a sensitivity of 0.945 and a specificity of 0.970. A second fully non-invasive model using systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and waist circumference, with the same covariates, also showed good discrimination and was retained as a candidate model. SHAP analysis provided individual-level explanations of model predictions and identified BMI and TG as key clinical contributors. In addition, we constructed a PDC identification model based on dietary preferences. The logistic regression model showed good discriminative performance in the training data (AUC = 0.891, specificity = 0.964) and the testing data (AUC = 0.838, specificity = 0.894). SHAP indicated that scorching and salty preferences shifted predictions toward PDC, whereas a light preference shifted predictions toward BC. Discussion: In summary, this study developed interpretable models to improve PDC identification, including a fully non-invasive model, thereby potentially supporting early risk identification and preventive strategies for metabolic diseases in clinical settings.
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.