MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129619312 · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3059343

Detection and Prediction of Diabetes Using Data Mining: A Comprehensive Review

2021· review· en· W3129619312 on OpenAlexaff
Farrukh Aslam Khan, Khan Zeb, Mabrook Al‐Rakhami, Abdelouahid Derhab, Syed Ahmad Chan Bukhari

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetes mellitusComputer sciencePredictive modellingField (mathematics)Data miningGlycemicMachine learningDomain (mathematical analysis)Diabetes managementArtificial intelligenceData scienceMedicineType 2 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes is one of the most rapidly growing chronic diseases, which has affected millions of people around the globe. Its diagnosis, prediction, proper cure, and management are crucial. Data mining based forecasting techniques for data analysis of diabetes can help in the early detection and prediction of the disease and the related critical events such as hypo/hyperglycemia. Numerous techniques have been developed in this domain for diabetes detection, prediction, and classification. In this paper, we present a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art in the area of diabetes diagnosis and prediction using data mining. The aim of this paper is twofold; firstly, we explore and investigate the data mining based diagnosis and prediction solutions in the field of glycemic control for diabetes. Secondly, in the light of this investigation, we provide a comprehensive classification and comparison of the techniques that have been frequently used for diagnosis and prediction of diabetes based on important key metrics. Moreover, we highlight the challenges and future research directions in this area that can be considered in order to develop optimized solutions for diabetes detection and prediction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.720
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.108 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations108
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207