MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322703713 · doi:10.2196/44018

Prediction of Weight Loss to Decrease the Risk for Type 2 Diabetes Using Multidimensional Data in Filipino Americans: Secondary Analysis

2023· article· en· W4322703713 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa Chang, Yoshimi Fukuoka, Bradley E. Aouizerat, Zhang Li, Elena Flowers

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Diabetes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsFeature selectionMachine learningDecision treeRandom forestArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineComputer scienceLogistic regressionData miningMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) has an immense disease burden, affecting millions of people worldwide and costing billions of dollars in treatment. As T2D is a multifactorial disease with both genetic and nongenetic influences, accurate risk assessments for patients are difficult to perform. Machine learning has served as a useful tool in T2D risk prediction, as it can analyze and detect patterns in large and complex data sets like that of RNA sequencing. However, before machine learning can be implemented, feature selection is a necessary step to reduce the dimensionality in high-dimensional data and optimize modeling results. Different combinations of feature selection methods and machine learning models have been used in studies reporting disease predictions and classifications with high accuracy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the use of feature selection and classification approaches that integrate different data types to predict weight loss for the prevention of T2D. METHODS: The data of 56 participants (ie, demographic and clinical factors, dietary scores, step counts, and transcriptomics) were obtained from a previously completed randomized clinical trial adaptation of the Diabetes Prevention Program study. Feature selection methods were used to select for subsets of transcripts to be used in the selected classification approaches: support vector machine, logistic regression, decision trees, random forest, and extremely randomized decision trees (extra-trees). Data types were included in different classification approaches in an additive manner to assess model performance for the prediction of weight loss. RESULTS: Average waist and hip circumference were found to be different between those who exhibited weight loss and those who did not exhibit weight loss (P=.02 and P=.04, respectively). The incorporation of dietary and step count data did not improve modeling performance compared to classifiers that included only demographic and clinical data. Optimal subsets of transcripts identified through feature selection yielded higher prediction accuracy than when all available transcripts were included. After comparison of different feature selection methods and classifiers, DESeq2 as a feature selection method and an extra-trees classifier with and without ensemble learning provided the most optimal results, as defined by differences in training and testing accuracy, cross-validated area under the curve, and other factors. We identified 5 genes in two or more of the feature selection subsets (ie, CDP-diacylglycerol-inositol 3-phosphatidyltransferase [CDIPT], mannose receptor C type 2 [MRC2], PAT1 homolog 2 [PATL2], regulatory factor X-associated ankyrin containing protein [RFXANK], and small ubiquitin like modifier 3 [SUMO3]). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the inclusion of transcriptomic data in classification approaches for prediction has the potential to improve weight loss prediction models. Identification of which individuals are likely to respond to interventions for weight loss may help to prevent incident T2D. Out of the 5 genes identified as optimal predictors, 3 (ie, CDIPT, MRC2, and SUMO3) have been previously shown to be associated with T2D or obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02278939; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02278939.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.226
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR DiabetesSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207