Why the study?
Diabetes and its complications pose challenges requiring innovative strategies, and a comparative analysis of existing machine learning models was needed to identify the most suitable model using uniform parameters.
Can machine learning models accurately predict the risk of Type 2 Diabetes and its complications based on biomarker measurements?
Can machine learning models accurately predict the risk of Type 2 Diabetes and its complications based on biomarker measurements?
Machine learning models, particularly Random Forest and neural networks, demonstrate high accuracy in predicting the onset and complications of Type 2 Diabetes using biomarker data.
The global healthcare system faces significant challenges posed by diabetes and its complications, highlighting the need for innovative strategies to improve early diagnosis and treatment. Machine learning models help in the early detection of diseases and recommendations for taking safety measures and treating the disease. A comparative analysis of existing machine learning (ML) models is necessary to identify the most suitable model while uniformly fixing the model parameters. Assessing risk based on biomarker measurement and computing overall risk is important for accurate prediction. Early prediction of complications that may arise, based on the risk of diabetes and biomarkers, using machine learning models, is key to helping patients. In this paper, a comparative model is presented to evaluate ML models based on common model characteristics. Additionally, a risk assessment model and a prediction model are presented to help predict the occurrence of complications. Random Forest (RF) is the best model for predicting the occurrence of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) based on biomarker input. It has also been shown that the prediction of diabetes complications using neural networks is highly accurate, reaching a level of 98%.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bontha et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: