MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406823617 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-87767-1

Efficient diagnosis of diabetes mellitus using an improved ensemble method

2025· article· en· W4406823617 on OpenAlexaff
Blessing Oluwatobi Olorunfemi, Adewale Opeoluwa Ogunde, Ahmad Almogren, Abidemi Emmanuel Adeniyi, Sunday Adeola Ajagbe, Salil Bharany, Ayman Altameem, Ateeq Ur Rehman, Asif Mehmood, Habib Hamam

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
FundersKing Saud University
KeywordsDiabetes mellitusComputer scienceMedicineBioinformaticsInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes is a growing health concern in developing countries, causing considerable mortality rates. While machine learning (ML) approaches have been widely used to improve early detection and treatment, several studies have shown low classification accuracies due to overfitting, underfitting, and data noise. This research employs parallel and sequential ensemble ML approaches paired with feature selection techniques to boost classification accuracy. The Pima India Diabetes Data from the UCI ML Repository served as the dataset. Data preprocessing included cleaning the dataset by replacing missing values with column means and selecting highly correlated features using forward and backward selection methods. The dataset was split into two parts: training (70%), and testing (30%). Python was used for classification in Jupyter Notebook, and there were two design phases. The first phase utilized J48, Classification and Regression Tree (CART), and Decision Stump (DS) to create a random forest model. The second phase employed the same algorithms alongside sequential ensemble methods-XG Boost, AdaBoostM1, and Gradient Boosting-using an average voting algorithm for binary classification. Evaluation revealed that XG Boost, AdaBoostM1, and Gradient Boosting achieved classification accuracies of 100%, with performance metrics including F1 score, MCC, Precision, Recall, AUC-ROC, and AUC-PR all equal to 1.00, indicating reliable predictions of diabetes presence. Researchers and practitioners can leverage the predictive model developed in this work to make quick predictions of diabetes mellitus, which could save many lives.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207