An Explainable AI Framework for Online Diabetes Risk Prediction with a Personalized Chatbot Assistant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Diabetes is a prevalent chronic disease that presents considerable health risks, making prompt diagnosis and treatment essential to avert complications. Traditional Artificial Intelligence (AI) models for diabetes prediction often operate as black boxes. A major issue caused by this is that black boxes lack interpretability, which impacts their effectiveness in clinical use cases. We introduce a novel online recommendation framework using explainable AI (XAI) to predict type II diabetes risk and provide clear, actionable analyses with a personalized chatbot assistant. Methods: To make the model, we chose the CatBoost classifier and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) due to their ability to provide accurate predictions. Using those tools, we analyzed 16 individual risk factors from a dataset of 520 patients. We applied the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) to reduce the effect of data imbalance. We also developed an interactive interface that allows users to input data, visualize personalized risk profiles, and understand the driving factors behind predictions. Finally, large language models (LLMs) were integrated into the interface for patient-specific recommendations for improving health and lifestyle through a personalized chatbot assistant. Results: The model demonstrated great predictive performance, with an Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) of 0.99, a Cohen Kappa score of 0.978, and an F1 score of 0.99. For the minority class, SMOTE application improved performance metrics, resulting in an AUC of 0.98 and an F1 score of 0.91 for female patients. Conclusions: This study proposes an explainable AI framework for predicting diabetes risk online and providing patient-specific advice through a personalized chatbot assistant. This will help to facilitate better decision-making and improved management of diabetes risk.
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".