Evidence mapPaperPMID 38496004Full record

ArticleDiabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy2024

Risk Prediction of Diabetes Progression Using Big Data Mining with Multifarious Physical Examination Indicators.

Xiaohong Chen, Shiqi Zhou, Lin Yang, Qianqian Zhong, Hongguang Liu, Yongjian Zhang, Hanyi Yu, Yongjiang Cai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaohong Chen *Center of Health Management, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Shiqi Zhou *School of Future Technology, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Lin YangCenter of Health Management, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Qianqian ZhongCenter of Health Management, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Hongguang LiuCenter of Health Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Union Hospital (Nanshan Hospital), Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Yongjian ZhangCenter of Health Management, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Hanyi YuSchool of Future Technology, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-4587-2147
Yongjiang CaiCenter of Health Management, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Peking University Shenzhen Hospital · CNSouth China University of Technology · CNUnion Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore the independent-influencing factors from normal people to prediabetes and from prediabetes to diabetes and use different prediction models to build diabetes prediction models. Methods: The original data in this retrospective study are collected from the participants who took physical examinations in the Health Management Center of Peking University Shenzhen Hospital. Regression analysis is individually applied between the populations of normal and prediabetes, as well as the populations of prediabetes and diabetes, for feature selection. Afterward,the independent influencing factors mentioned above are used as predictive factors to construct a prediction model. Results: Selecting physical examination indicators for training different ML models through univariate and multivariate logistic regression, the study finds Age, PRO, TP, and ALT are four independent risk factors for normal people to develop prediabetes, and GLB and HDL.C are two independent protective factors, while logistic regression performs best on the testing set (Acc: 0.76, F-measure: 0.74, AUC: 0.78). We also find Age, Gender, BMI, SBP, U.GLU, PRO, ALT, and TG are independent risk factors for prediabetes people to diabetes, and AST is an independent protective factor, while logistic regression performs best on the testing set (Acc: 0.86, F-measure: 0.84, AUC: 0.74). Conclusion: The discussion of the clinical relationships between these indicators and diabetes supports the interpretability of our feature selection. Among four prediction models, the logistic regression model achieved the best performance on the testing set.

Indexed as

machine learningphysical examinationprediabetesprediction modelregression analysis

Identifiers

PMID38496004
PMCPMC10942017
OpenAlexW4392653031

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.