MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414555877 · doi:10.6000/1929-6029.2025.14.55

Evaluation of A Novel Risk Factor Screening Tool for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Machine Learning Based Predictive Method

2025· article· en· W4414555877 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Usha Adiga, Tirthal Rai, Sampara Vasishta, Brij Kishore, Tunuguntla Amulya, Lokesh Ravi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestational diabetesLogistic regressionRandom forestPredictive modellingRisk factorPregnancyPredictive valueDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a significant pregnancy complication linked to adverse outcomes for both mother and child. Early identification of high-risk individuals is crucial for effective management and prevention for the onset/progression of the GDM. Our study aims to a) evaluate the effectiveness of a newly developed machine learning based risk factor screening tool for predicting GDM and b) to compare its predictive performance against established models and current literature. Methods: This study explored SNP data from the leptin (LEP) and leptin receptor (LEPR) genes to develop machine learning models for predicting gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). It included data preprocessing, such as cleaning and feature selection, focusing on genetic markers, metabolic parameters, and demographic information. Various algorithms, including Logistic Regression, Decision Trees, and Random Forests, were used, and their performance was evaluated using metrics like accuracy and ROC-AUC to determine the best model for GDM prediction. Results: The newly developed screening tool demonstrated a sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 78%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 68%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 90% in predicting GDM. Comparatively, machine learning models showed higher sensitivity (90-95%) but lower specificity (65-75%). Conclusion: The developed risk factor screening tool is a viable method for predicting GDM, with accuracy metrics comparable to advanced machine learning models and established literature. Future research should focus on refining these tools and exploring their integration into routine prenatal care to enhance early detection and intervention strategies for GDM.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical ResearchSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207