Pilot-Study to Explore Metabolic Signature of Type 2 Diabetes: A Pipeline of Tree-Based Machine Learning and Bioinformatics Techniques for Biomarkers Discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aims to identify unique metabolomics biomarkers associated with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) and develop an accurate diagnostics model using tree-based machine learning (ML) algorithms integrated with bioinformatics techniques. METHODS: Univariate and multivariate analyses such as fold change, a receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), and Partial Least-Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) were used to identify biomarker metabolites that showed significant concentration in T2D patients. Three tree-based algorithms [eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), and Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost)] that demonstrated robustness in high-dimensional data analysis were used to create a diagnostic model for T2D. RESULTS: As a result of the biomarker discovery process validated with three different approaches, Pyruvate, D-Rhamnose, AMP, pipecolate, Tetradecenoic acid, Tetradecanoic acid, Dodecanediothioic acid, Prostaglandin E3/D3 (isobars), ADP and Hexadecenoic acid were determined as potential biomarkers for T2D. Our results showed that the XGBoost model [accuracy = 0.831, F1-score = 0.845, sensitivity = 0.882, specificity = 0.774, positive predictive value (PPV) = 0.811, negative-PV (NPV) = 0.857 and Area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.887] had the slight highest performance measures. CONCLUSIONS: ML integrated with bioinformatics techniques offers accurate and positive T2D candidate biomarker discovery. The XGBoost model can successfully distinguish T2D based on metabolites.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".