Machine learning risk score for prediction of gestational diabetes in early pregnancy in Tianjin, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to develop a machine learning-based prediction model for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in early pregnancy in Chinese women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used an established population-based prospective cohort of 19,331 pregnant women registered as pregnant before the 15th gestational week in Tianjin, China, from October 2010 to August 2012. The dataset was randomly divided into a training set (70%) and a test set (30%). Risk factors collected at registration were examined and used to construct the prediction model in the training dataset. Machine learning, that is, the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) method, was employed to develop the model, while a traditional logistic model was also developed for comparison purposes. In the test dataset, the performance of the developed prediction model was assessed by calibration plots for calibration and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUR) for discrimination. RESULTS: In total, 1484 (7.6%) women developed GDM. Pre-pregnancy body mass index, maternal age, fasting plasma glucose at registration, and alanine aminotransferase were selected as risk factors. The machine learning XGBoost model-predicted probability of GDM was similar to the observed probability in the test data set, while the logistic model tended to overestimate the risk at the highest risk level (Hosmer-Lemeshow test p value: 0.243 vs. 0.099). The XGBoost model achieved a higher AUR than the logistic model (0.742 vs. 0.663, p < 0.001). This XGBoost model was deployed through a free, publicly available software interface (https://liuhongwei.shinyapps.io/gdm_risk_calculator/). CONCLUSION: The XGBoost model achieved better performance than the logistic model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".