Prognostic Modeling and Prevention of Diabetes Using Machine Learning Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stratifying individuals at risk for developing diabetes could enable targeted delivery of interventional programs to those at highest risk, while avoiding the effort and costs of prevention and treatment in those at low risk. The objective of this study was to explore the potential role of a Hidden Markov Model (HMM), a machine learning technique, in validating the performance of the Framingham Diabetes Risk Scoring Model (FDRSM), a well-respected prognostic model. Can HMM predict 8-year risk of developing diabetes in an individual effectively? To our knowledge, no study has attempted use of HMM to validate the performance of FDRSM. We used Electronic Medical Record (EMR) data, of 172,168 primary care patients to derive the 8-year risk of developing diabetes in an individual using HMM. The Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AROC) in our study sample of 911 individuals for whom all risk factors and follow up data were available is 86.9% compared to AROCs of 78.6% and 85% reported in a previously conducted validation study of FDRSM in the same Canadian population and the Framingham study respectively. These results demonstrate that the discrimination capability of our proposed HMM is superior to the validation study conducted using the FDRSM in a Canadian population and in the Framingham population. We conclude that HMM is capable of identifying patients at increased risk of developing diabetes within the next 8-years.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".