MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting Diabetes in Canadian Adults Using Machine Learning

2024· article· en· W4405490158 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kayla Esser, Monica Duong, Khalil Kain, Son N. Tran, Aryan Sadeghi, Aziz Guergachi, Karim Keshavjee, Mohammad Noaeen, Zahra Shakeri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDiabetes mellitusMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rising diabetes rates have led to increased healthcare costs and health complications. An estimated half of diabetes cases remain undiagnosed. Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial to mitigate disease progression and associated risks. This study addresses the challenge of predicting diabetes prevalence in Canadian adults by employing machine learning (ML) techniques to primary care data. We leveraged the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN), Canada's premier multi-disease electronic medical record surveillance system, and developed and validated seven ML classification models to predict the likelihood of diabetes. The models were trained on clinical patient characteristics influential in predicting diabetes. We found XGBoost performed best out of all the models, with an AUC of 92%. The most important features contributing to model prediction were HbA1c level, LDL, and hypertension medication. Our research aims to aid healthcare professionals in early diagnosis and to identify key patient characteristics for targeted interventions. This study contributes to an understanding of how ML can enhance public health planning and reduce healthcare system burdens.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Simulation or modelinglow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSimulation or modeling · Observational
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207