Diagnosing diabetes mellitus using machine learning techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a frequent condition in which the body's sugar levels are abnormally high for an extended length of time. It is a major cause of death with high mortality rates and the second leading cause of total years lived with disability worldwide. Its seriousness comes from its long-term complications, including nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy leading to kidney failure, poor vision and blindness, and peripheral sensory loss, respectively. Such conditions are life-threatening and affect patients’ quality of life. Therefore, this paper aims to identify the most relevant features in the diagnosis of DM and identify the best classifier that can efficiently diagnose DM based on a set of relevant features. To achieve this, four different feature selection methods have been utilized. Moreover, twelve different classifiers that belong to six learning strategies have been evaluated using two datasets and several evaluation metrics such as Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1-measure, and ROC area. The obtained results revealed that the correlation attribute evaluation method would be the best choice to handle the task of feature selection and ranking for the considered datasets, especially when considering the Accuracy metric. Furthermore, MultiClassClassifier would be the best classifier to handle Diabetes datasets, especially when considering True Positive, precision, and Recall metrics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".