ArticleHealthcare informatics research2026
Evaluation and Comparison of Machine Learning Methods for Type 2 Diabetes Classification and Associated Factors.
Article in Healthcare informatics research, 2026. 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
objectivesType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a prevalent chronic metabolic disorder associated with serious complications, including nephropathy, cardiovascular disease, retinopathy, and neuropathy. Given its increasing incidence and the complexity of associated factors-such as obesity, metabolic syndrome, and sedentary lifestyle-accurate identification is essential. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of several machine learning algorithms to identify key associated factors and detect individuals with T2DM within this dataset.
methodsA publicly available dataset from Kaggle, comprising health records of 99,982 individuals, was used. Five supervised machine learning models were evaluated: Bayesian ridge regression, logistic regression, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), artificial neural networks, and random forest. Each model was trained and evaluated to assess classification performance. Performance was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) and accuracy. SHapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) values were used to interpret model outputs and identify the most influential features.
resultsAmong the five models, XGBoost demonstrated the highest performance, achieving an accuracy of 96% and an AUC-ROC of 0.98. SHAP analysis identified hemoglobin A1c, blood glucose, age, body mass index, and sex as the most influential predictors of T2DM.
conclusionXGBoost was the most effective algorithm for identifying individuals with T2DM in this dataset. It also provided insights into the relative importance of clinical features, supporting more precise classification. However, results should be interpreted with caution until validated in independent cohorts.
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.