4.6 Article

Data-Driven Machine-Learning Methods for Diabetes Risk Prediction

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 22, Issue 14, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s22145304

Keywords

diabetes; prediction; Machine Learning; data analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study applies supervised learning methodology to develop efficient risk prediction tools for type 2 diabetes. A features analysis is conducted to evaluate their importance and explore their association with diabetes. Various machine learning models are trained and tested, with Random Forest and K-NN identified as the best performing models.
Diabetes mellitus is a chronic condition characterized by a disturbance in the metabolism of carbohydrates, fats and proteins. The most characteristic disorder in all forms of diabetes is hyperglycemia, i.e., elevated blood sugar levels. The modern way of life has significantly increased the incidence of diabetes. Therefore, early diagnosis of the disease is a necessity. Machine Learning (ML) has gained great popularity among healthcare providers and physicians due to its high potential in developing efficient tools for risk prediction, prognosis, treatment and the management of various conditions. In this study, a supervised learning methodology is described that aims to create risk prediction tools with high efficiency for type 2 diabetes occurrence. A features analysis is conducted to evaluate their importance and explore their association with diabetes. These features are the most common symptoms that often develop slowly with diabetes, and they are utilized to train and test several ML models. Various ML models are evaluated in terms of the Precision, Recall, F-Measure, Accuracy and AUC metrics and compared under 10-fold cross-validation and data splitting. Both validation methods highlighted Random Forest and K-NN as the best performing models in comparison to the other models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available