ArticleScientific reports2023
Data collaboration analysis in predicting diabetes from a small amount of health checkup data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating covariate-balanced survival curve in distributed data environment using data collaboration quasi-experiment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Data collaboration for causal inference from limited medical testing and medication data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies showed that machine learning models such as gradient-boosting decision tree (GBDT) can predict diabetes with high accuracy from big data. In this study, we asked whether highly accurate prediction of diabetes is possible even from small data by expanding the amount of data through data collaboration (DC) analysis, a modern framework for integrating and analyzing data accumulated at multiple institutions while ensuring confidentiality. To this end, we focused on data from two institutions: health checkup data of 1502 citizens accumulated in Tsukuba City and health history data of 1399 patients collected at the University of Tsukuba Hospital. When using only the health checkup data, the ROC-AUC and Recall for logistic regression (LR) were 0.858 ± 0.014 and 0.970 ± 0.019, respectively, while those for GBDT were 0.856 ± 0.014 and 0.983 ± 0.016, respectively. When using also the health history data through DC analysis, these values for LR improved to 0.875 ± 0.013 and 0.993 ± 0.009, respectively, while those for GBDT deteriorated because of the low compatibility with a method used for confidential data sharing (although DC analysis brought improvements). Even in a situation where health checkup data of only 324 citizens are available, the ROC-AUC and Recall for LR were 0.767 ± 0.025 and 0.867 ± 0.04, respectively, thanks to DC analysis, indicating an 11% and 12% improvement. Thus, we concluded that the answer to the above question was "Yes" for LR but "No" for GBDT for the data set tested in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.