Diagnosing diabetes mellitus using machine learning techniques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it