Improving Accuracy for Diabetes Mellitus Prediction by Using Deepnet
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes is a salient issue and a significant health care concern for many nations. The forecast for the prevalence of diabetes is on the rise. Hence, building a prediction machine learning model to assist in the identification of diabetic patients is of great interest. This study aims to create a machine learning model that is capable of predicting diabetes with high performance. The following study used the BigML platform to train four machine learning algorithms, namely, Deepnet, Models (decision tree), Ensemble and Logistic Regression, on data sets collected from the Ministry of National Guard Hospital Affairs (MNGHA) in Saudi Arabia between the years of 2013 and 2015. The comparative evaluation criteria for the four algorithms examined included; Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F-measure and PhiCoefficient. Results show that the Deepnet algorithm achieved higher performance compared to other machine learning algorithms based on various evaluation matrices.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it