MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409906123 · doi:10.2196/72238

Prediction of Insulin Resistance in Nondiabetic Population Using LightGBM and Cohort Validation of Its Clinical Value: Cross-Sectional and Retrospective Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4409906123 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ting Peng, Rujia Miao, Lin Yanhui, Jiayi Ren, Jianwen Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortCross-sectional studyRetrospective cohort studyPreprintPopulationCohort studyStatisticsInternal medicineComputer scienceEnvironmental healthMathematicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207