Comparative approaches for classification of diabetes mellitus data: Machine learning paradigm
Abstract
Background and objective Diabetes is a silent killer. The main cause of this disease is the presence of excessive amounts of metabolites such as glucose. There were about 387 million diabetic people all over the world in 2014. The financial burden of this disease has been calculated to be about $13,700 per year. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), these figures will more than double by the year 2030. This cost will be reduced dramatically if someone can predict diabetes statistically on the basis of some covariates. Although several classification techniques are available, it is very difficult to classify diabetes. The main objectives of this paper are as follows: (i) Gaussian process classification (GPC), (ii) comparative classifier for diabetes data classification, (iii) data analysis using the cross-validation approach, (iv) interpretation of the data analysis and (v) benchmarking our method against others. Methods To classify diabetes, several classification techniques are used such as linear discriminant analysis (LDA), quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA), and Naive Bayes (NB). However, most of the medical data show non-normality, non-linearity and inherent correlation structure. So in this paper we adapted Gaussian process (GP)-based classification technique using three kernels namely: linear, polynomial and radial basis kernel. We also investigate the performance of a GP-based classification technique in comparison to existing techniques such as LDA, QD…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AI can classify different types of diabetes more accurately, but further algorithm upgrading is required to meet clinical treatment needs.
“Although AI can classify different types of diabetes more accurately,51,54,55 further algorithm upgrading is required to meet the clinical treatment needs.”
From Artificial intelligence in diabetes management: Advancements, opportunities, and challenges (2023) · cites this paper as [51]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 43 · Cited by 270
- Authors
- Maniruzzaman, M., Kumar, N., Menhazul Abedin, M., Shaykhul Islam, M., Suri, H. S., El-Baz, A. S., & Suri, J. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Rajshahi (BD)
- Gopalganj Science and Technology University (BD)
- University of Louisville (US)
- Idaho State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Suri, Jasjit S.
- Venue
- Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 152
- Pages
- 23-34
- ISSN
- 0169-2607 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2752627726
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 19.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- diabetes classification, Gaussian process classification, Pima Indians diabetes dataset, kernel comparison, linear discriminant analysis, quadratic discriminant analysis, naive Bayes, cross-validation, medical data classification, diagnostic accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Discriminant Analysis
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