Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42085439›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

A new extended belief rule base method based on neighborhood covering reduction for diabetes diagnosis.

Shucheng Feng, Wei He, Li Jiang, Manlin Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Shucheng FengHarbin Normal University, Harbin, China.
Wei HeHarbin Normal University, Harbin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4523-8242
Li JiangHarbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China.
Manlin ChenChangChun University of Technology, Changchun, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The precise diagnosis and scientific management of diabetes are highly important for improving patients' quality of life and reducing the risk of complications. However, in actual clinical settings, diagnostic processes often face challenges, including significant individual differences among patients, complex and diverse parameters, and heterogeneity in disease progression. These challenges not only impose greater requirements on the adaptability and precision of diagnostic and therapeutic models but also highlight the need for explainable disease mechanisms and rational treatment strategies. To address these issues, this study proposes an Extended Belief Rule Base (EBRB) model based on neighborhood covering reduction, abbreviated as NCR-EBRB, for diabetes prediction and diagnosis. During the model construction phase, the Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) method is first employed for feature importance evaluation to reasonably screen key features and effectively reduce model dimensionality. In the model inference phase, the Neighborhood Covering Reduction (NCR) method is adopted to implement rule reduction in the rule base, combined with a threshold-based rule activation strategy to filter out inefficient rules, ensuring efficient reasoning processes and effective result output. During the model optimization phase, the Projection Covariance Matrix Adaptive Evolution Strategy (P-CMA-ES) is applied to optimize the parameters of the streamlined rule base, aiming to identify optimal parameter configurations for further improving model performance. Through this meticulous parameter tuning, the diagnostic accuracy is enhanced, and the robustness of the model is improved.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsHumans

Identifiers

PMID42085439
PMCPMC13143082

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.