Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Screening and Risk Factors Using Decision Tree: Results of Data Mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine a predictive model using features related to the diabetes type 2 risk factors. METHODS: The data were obtained from a database in a diabetes control system in Tabriz, Iran. The data included all people referred for diabetes screening between 2009 and 2011. The features considered as "Inputs" were: age, sex, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, family history of diabetes, and body mass index (BMI). Moreover, we used diagnosis as "Class". We applied the "Decision Tree" technique and "J48" algorithm in the WEKA (3.6.10 version) software to develop the model. RESULTS: After data preprocessing and preparation, we used 22,398 records for data mining. The model precision to identify patients was 0.717. The age factor was placed in the root node of the tree as a result of higher information gain. The ROC curve indicates the model function in identification of patients and those individuals who are healthy. The curve indicates high capability of the model, especially in identification of the healthy persons. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a model using the decision tree for screening T2DM which did not require laboratory tests for T2DM diagnosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".