Metabolic Syndrome and Development of Diabetes Mellitus: Predictive Modeling Based on Machine Learning Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this inductive research was to investigate: 1) the relationship between diabetes mellitus and individual risk factors of metabolic syndrome (MetS), in a non-conservative setting; 2) the prediction of future onset of diabetes using relevant risk factors of MetS; and 3) to investigate the relative performance of machine learning methods when data sampling techniques are used to generate balanced training sets. The dataset used in this research contains 667 907 records for a period ranging from 2003 to 2013. Quantifying the contribution of individual risk factors of MetS in the development of diabetes in a non-conservative setting logistic regression analysis was performed. Our analyses contradict the view that diabetes is commonly associated with low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL). Instead, our results demonstrate that the increased levels of HDL are positively correlated with diabetes onset, particularly in women. We also proposed J48 decision tree and Naïve Bayes methods for prediction of future onset of diabetes using relevant risk factors obtained from logistic regression analysis, over balanced and unbalanced datasets. The results demonstrated the supremacy of Naïve Bayes with K-medoids under-sampling technique as compared to random under-sampling, oversampling, and no sampling. It is achieved on average 79% receiver operating characteristic performance with the increased true positive rate. The results of this paper suggest further research to clarify the pathophysiological significance of HDL and pathways in the development of diabetes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".