Comparison of multiple linear regression and machine learning methods in predicting cognitive function in older Chinese type 2 diabetes patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has increased dramatically in recent decades, and there are increasing indications that dementia is related to T2D. Previous attempts to analyze such relationships principally relied on traditional multiple linear regression (MLR). However, recently developed machine learning methods (Mach-L) outperform MLR in capturing non-linear relationships. The present study applied four different Mach-L methods to analyze the relationships between risk factors and cognitive function in older T2D patients, seeking to compare the accuracy between MLR and Mach-L in predicting cognitive function and to rank the importance of risks factors for impaired cognitive function in T2D. METHODS: We recruited older T2D between 60-95 years old without other major comorbidities. Demographic factors and biochemistry data were used as independent variables and cognitive function assessment (CFA) was conducted using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment as an independent variable. In addition to traditional MLR, we applied random forest (RF), stochastic gradient boosting (SGB), Naïve Byer's classifier (NB) and eXtreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). RESULTS: Totally, the test cohort consisted of 197 T2D (98 men and 99 women). Results showed that all ML methods outperformed MLR, with symmetric mean absolute percentage errors for MLR, RF, SGB, NB and XGBoost respectively of 0.61, 0.599, 0.606, 0.599 and 0.2139. Education level, age, frailty score, fasting plasma glucose and body mass index were identified as key factors in descending order of importance. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our study demonstrated that RF, SGB, NB and XGBoost are more accurate than MLR for predicting CFA score, and identify education level, age, frailty score, fasting plasma glucose, body fat and body mass index as important risk factors in an older Chinese T2D cohort.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".