ArticleScientific reports2025
Efficient diagnosis of diabetes mellitus using an improved ensemble method.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanostructured electrode materials and flexible-substrate engineering for wearable multi-analyte biosensors in diabetes monitoring and personalized care: a comprehensive review.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Review
- An Effective Model-Based Voting Classifier for Diabetes Mellitus Classification.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring the Therapeutic Potential of Sulfonamide-1,3,4-Thiadiazole Hybrids: Focus on Neurological and Infectious Diseases.Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- A hybrid BiLSTM and rule-based system for integrated diabetes prediction and personalized guidance.PloS one · 2026Article
- A dynamic weighted ensemble learning framework for cardiovascular risk prediction in type 2 diabetes: a comparative study with SHAP-based interpretability.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Multitask learning multimodal network for chronic disease prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diabetes is a growing health concern in developing countries, causing considerable mortality rates. While machine learning (ML) approaches have been widely used to improve early detection and treatment, several studies have shown low classification accuracies due to overfitting, underfitting, and data noise. This research employs parallel and sequential ensemble ML approaches paired with feature selection techniques to boost classification accuracy. The Pima India Diabetes Data from the UCI ML Repository served as the dataset. Data preprocessing included cleaning the dataset by replacing missing values with column means and selecting highly correlated features using forward and backward selection methods. The dataset was split into two parts: training (70%), and testing (30%). Python was used for classification in Jupyter Notebook, and there were two design phases. The first phase utilized J48, Classification and Regression Tree (CART), and Decision Stump (DS) to create a random forest model. The second phase employed the same algorithms alongside sequential ensemble methods-XG Boost, AdaBoostM1, and Gradient Boosting-using an average voting algorithm for binary classification. Evaluation revealed that XG Boost, AdaBoostM1, and Gradient Boosting achieved classification accuracies of 100%, with performance metrics including F1 score, MCC, Precision, Recall, AUC-ROC, and AUC-PR all equal to 1.00, indicating reliable predictions of diabetes presence. Researchers and practitioners can leverage the predictive model developed in this work to make quick predictions of diabetes mellitus, which could save many lives.
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.