ArticleDiabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy2024
Risk Prediction of Diabetes Progression Using Big Data Mining with Multifarious Physical Examination Indicators.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- PCLPred: identifying plant chloride transport-related proteins using reduced amino acid alphabets and N-peptide composition.Amino acids · 2026Article
- Application of generalized linear mixed effects random forest for identifying risk factors of prediabetes in Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Prediabetes: A Scoping Review.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Review
- Development of a 5-Year Risk Prediction Model for Transition From Prediabetes to Diabetes Using Machine Learning: Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Models Integrating Dietary Indicators Improve the Prediction of Progression from Prediabetes to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Nutrients · 2025Article
- A machine learning framework for predicting cognitive impairment in aging populations using urinary metal and demographic data.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Predictive Modeling of the Risk of Hyperglycemia in Psoriasis Patients Using Machine Learning: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2025Article
- Amino Acid Reduction Can Help to Improve the Identification of Antimicrobial Peptides and Their Functional Activities.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.