Prediction of Insulin Resistance in Nondiabetic Population Using LightGBM and Cohort Validation of Its Clinical Value: Cross-Sectional and Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Insulin resistance (IR), a precursor to type 2 diabetes and a major risk factor for various chronic diseases, is becoming increasingly prevalent in China due to population aging and unhealthy lifestyles. Current methods like the gold-standard hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp has limitations in practical application. The development of more convenient and efficient methods to predict and manage IR in nondiabetic populations will have prevention and control value. Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning prediction model for IR in a nondiabetic population, using low-cost diagnostic indicators and questionnaire surveys. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted for model development, and a retrospective cohort study was used for validation. Data from 17,287 adults with normal fasting blood glucose who underwent physical exams and completed surveys at the Health Management Center of Xiangya Third Hospital, Central South University, from January 2018 to August 2022, were analyzed. IR was assessed using the Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA-IR) method. The dataset was split into 80% (13,128/16,411) training and 20% (32,83/16,411) testing. A total of 5 machine learning algorithms, namely random forest, Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), Extreme Gradient Boosting, Gradient Boosting Machine, and CatBoost were used. Model optimization included resampling, feature selection, and hyperparameter tuning. Performance was evaluated using F1-score, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and Kappa value. Shapley Additive Explanations analysis was used to assess feature importance. For clinical implication investigation, a different retrospective cohort of 20,369 nondiabetic participants (from the Xiangya Third Hospital database between January 2017 and January 2019) was used for time-to-event analysis with Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Results: Data from 16,411 nondiabetic individuals were analyzed. We randomly selected 13,128 participants for the training group, and 3283 participants for the validation group. The final model included 34 lifestyle-related questionnaire features and 17 biochemical markers. In the validation group, their AUC were all greater than 0.90. In the test group, all AUC were also greater than 0.80. The LightGBM model showed the best IR prediction performance with an accuracy of 0.7542, sensitivity of 0.6639, specificity of 0.7642, F1-score of 0.6748, Kappa value of 0.3741, and AUC of 0.8456. Top 10 features included BMI, fasting blood glucose, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, sex, total bilirubin, age, and albumin/globulin ratio. In the validation queue, all participants were separated into the high-risk IR group and the low-risk IR group according to the LightGBM algorithm. Out of 5101 high-risk IR participants, 235 (4.6%) developed diabetes, while 137 (0.9%) of 15,268 low-risk IR participants did. This resulted in a hazard ratio of 5.1, indicating a significantly higher risk for the high-risk IR group. Conclusions: By leveraging low-cost laboratory indicators and questionnaire data, the LightGBM model effectively predicts IR status in nondiabetic individuals, aiding in large-scale IR screening and diabetes prevention, and it may potentially become an efficient and practical tool for insulin sensitivity assessment in these settings.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".