Physical Features and Vital Signs Predict Serum Albumin and Globulin Concentrations Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Serum protein concentrations are diagnostically and prognostically valuable in cancer and other diseases, but their measurement via blood test is uncomfortable, inconvenient, and costly. This study investigates the possibility of predicting albumin, globulin, and albumin-globulin ratio from easily accessible physical characteristics (height, weight, Body Mass Index, age, gender) and vital signs (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, pulse pressure, pulse) using advanced machine learning techniques. METHODS: We obtained albumin concentration, globulin concentration, albumin-globulin ratio and predictor information (physical characteristics, vital signs) from physical exam records of 46,951 healthy adult participants in Hangzhou, China. We trained a computational model to predict each serum protein concentration from the predictors and then evaluated the predictive accuracy of each model on an independent portion of the dataset that was not used in model training. We also determined the relative importance of each feature within the model. RESULTS: Prediction accuracies were r=0.540 (95% CI: 0.539-0.540; Pearson r) for albumin, r=0.250 (95% CI: 0.249-0.251) for globulin, and r=0.373 (95% CI: 0.372-0.374) for albumin-globulin ratio. The most important predictive features were age (100% ± 0.0%; mean ± 95% CI of normalized importance), gender (34.4% ± 0.7%), pulse (25.6% ± 1.3%) and Body Mass Index (24.4% ± 2.3%) for albumin, pulse (83.7% ± 3.8%) for globulin, and age (99.2% ± 1.0%), gender (59.2% ± 1.7%), Body Mass Index (46.1% ± 4.2%) and height (40.0% ± 3.8%) for albumin-globulin ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Our models predicted serum protein concentrations with appreciable accuracy showing the promise of this approach. Such models could serve to augment existing tools for identifying "at-risk" individuals for follow-up with a blood test.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".