Protocol for an Integrative Meta‐Analysis of the Application of Machine Learning Algorithms in the Prediction of Chronic Disease Risks and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Precise risk prediction of chronic diseases is essential for effective preventive care and management. Machine learning (ML) is a promising avenue to enhance chronic disease risk prediction; however, a comprehensive assessment of ML performance across various chronic diseases, populations, and health settings is needed. Methods: This meta-analysis aims to synthesize evidence on the performance of ML techniques for predicting the risks and outcomes of chronic diseases. A literature search was conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, Medline, and Embase. Studies applying ML techniques to predict chronic disease risks or outcomes and reporting performance metrics were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analysis, subgroup analyses, and meta-regression were performed to estimate pooled performance and explore heterogeneity. Discussion: This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of ML techniques in predicting the risks and consequences of chronic diseases. We reported the pooled estimates of performance metrics, such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score, for each chronic disease. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression identified factors that influence the performance of ML models, such as the ML algorithm, sample size, and data type. This meta-analysis synthesized evidence on ML techniques for chronic disease risk prediction, guiding the development of robust and generalizable ML-based tools. By identifying best practices and addressing challenges, this work advances predictive analytics in healthcare, facilitates translation into clinical practice, and ultimately improve patient outcomes. PROSPERO Protocol Registration: CRD42024566680.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".