Cited by 275Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsImbalanced Data Classification Techniques

Accurate Diabetes Risk Stratification Using Machine Learning: Role of Missing Value and Outliers

Open access
Maniruzzaman, Md., Rahman, Md. Jahanur, Al-MehediHasan, Md., Suri, Harman S., Abedin, Md. Menhazul, El-Baz, Ayman, Suri, Jasjit S.·2018·Journal of Medical Systems

Abstract

Diabetes mellitus is a group of metabolic diseases in which blood sugar levels are too high. About 8.8% of the world was diabetic in 2017. It is projected that this will reach nearly 10% by 2045. The major challenge is that when machine learning-based classifiers are applied to such data sets for risk stratification, leads to lower performance. Thus, our objective is to develop an optimized and robust machine learning (ML) system under the assumption that missing values or outliers if replaced by a median configuration will yield higher risk stratification accuracy. This ML-based risk stratification is designed, optimized and evaluated, where: (i) the features are extracted and optimized from the six feature selection techniques (random forest, logistic regression, mutual information, principal component analysis, analysis of variance, and Fisher discriminant ratio) and combined with ten different types of classifiers (linear discriminant analysis, quadratic discriminant analysis, naïve Bayes, Gaussian process classification, support vector machine, artificial neural network, Adaboost, logistic regression, decision tree, and random forest) under the hypothesis that both missing values and outliers when replaced by computed medians will improve the risk stratification accuracy. Pima Indian diabetic dataset (768 patients: 268 diabetic and 500 controls) was used. Our results demonstrate that on replacing the missing values and outliers by group median and median values, respectively and further using the combination of random forest feature selection and random forest classification technique yields an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under the curve as: 92.26%, 95.96%, 79.72%, 91.14%, 91.20%, and 0.93, respectively. This is an improvement of 10% over previously developed techniques published in literature. The system was validated for its stability and reliability. RF-based model showed the best performance when outliers are replaced by median values.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10916-018-0940-7

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maniruzzaman, M., Rahman, M. J., Al-MehediHasan, M., Suri, H. S., Abedin, M. M., El-Baz, A., & Suri, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Rajshahi (BD)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Khulna University (BD)
  • University of Louisville (US)
Corresponding author
Suri, Jasjit S.
Venue
Journal of Medical Systems
Published
2018-04-10
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
92-92
ISSN
  • 0148-5598 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-689X
OpenAlex
W2798421489
Cited by
275
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 3
FWCI
25.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Greater South Information System
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, diabetes risk stratification, missing data, outliers, median imputation, Pima Indians diabetes dataset, random forest feature selection, random forest classification, classifier comparison
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Bayes Theorem, Blood Glucose, Blood Pressure, Body Weights and Measures, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Decision Support Techniques, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Indians, North American, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Neural Networks, Computer, Age Distribution, Sex Distribution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review