ArticleDigital health
Diaproteo: A supervised learning framework for early detection of diabetes mellitus based on proteomic profiles.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disease that affects millions of people worldwide, posing major health risks and financial challenges. Early diagnosis and treatment are essential for reducing complications and improving patient outcomes. This research explores the application of supervised algorithms to predict DM using a variety of datasets such as clinical features, genetic markers, and lifestyle variables. This study proposes novel approaches and evaluates prediction models with classic machine learning algorithms and cutting-edge deep learning architecture. Performance metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score) reveal that the Extra Trees model for the independent test and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) for 10-fold cross-validation, achieving 91.52% accuracy with an F1 score of 0.91 (Extra Trees) and 87.03% accuracy with an F1 score of 84.82% (CNN). In addition, other evaluation indicators demonstrated that the Extra Trees algorithm outperformed others, achieving the highest accuracy on the independent test. Our study shows that machine learning and deep learning approaches may accurately predict DM, demonstrating the potential for early intervention and personalized healthcare strategies.
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.