Analysis for warning factors of type 2 diabetes mellitus complications with Markov blanket based on a Bayesian network model
Open accessAbstract
Background and objective Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) complications seriously affect the quality of life and could not be cured completely. Actions should be taken for prevention and self-management. Analysis of warning factors is beneficial for patients, on which some previous studies focused. They generally used the professional medical test factors or complete factors to predict and prevent, but it was inconvenient and impractical for patients to self-manage. With this in mind, this study built a Bayesian network (BN) model, from the perspective of diabetic patients' self-management and prevention, to predict six complications of T2DM using the selected warning factors which patients could have access from medical examination. Furthermore, the model was analyzed to explore the relationships between physiological variables and T2DM complications, as well as the complications themselves. The model aims to help patients with T2DM self-manage and prevent themselves from complications. Methods The dataset was collected from a well-known data center called the National Health Clinical Center between 1st January 2009 and 31st December 2009. After preprocess and impute the data, a BN model merging expert knowledge was built with Bootstrap and Tabu search algorithm. Markov Blanket (MB) was used to select the warning factors and predict T2DM complications. Moreover, a Bayesian network without prior information (BN-wopi) model learned using 10-fold cross-validation both in structure and in parameters was added to compare with other classifiers learned using 10-fold cross-validation fairly. The warning factors were selected according the structure learned in each fold and were used to predict. Finally, the performance of two BN models using warning features were compared with Naïve Bayes model, Random Forest model, and C5.0 Decision Tree model, which used all features to predict. Besides, the validation parameters of the proposed model were also compared with those in existing studies using some other variables in clinical data or biomedical data to predict T2DM complications. Results Experimental results indicated that the BN models using warning factors performed statistically better than their counterparts using all other variables in predicting T2DM complications. In addition, the proposed BN model were effective and significant in predicting diabetic nephropathy (DN) (AUC: 0.831), diabetic foot (DF) (AUC: 0.905), diabetic macrovascular complications (DMV) (AUC: 0.753) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DK) (AUC: 0.877) with the selected warning factors compared with other experiments. Conclusions The warning factors of DN, DF, DMV, and DK selected by MB in this research might be able to help predict certain T2DM complications effectively, and the proposed BN model might be used as a general tool for prevention, monitoring, and self-management.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Liu et al. (2020) presented AUC for BN (0.545), BN-wopi (0.685), NB (0.505), RF (0.516), and C5.0 (0.527).
“Liu et al. (2020) presented the AUC for the following models: BN (0.545), BN‐wopi (0.685), NB (0.505), RF (0.516) and C5.0 (0.527).”
From Artificial intelligence based prediction models for individuals at risk of multiple diabetic complications: A systematic review of the literature (2022) · cites this paper as Liu et al. (2020)
Section 3.1 compares BN, BN-wopi, NB, RF and C5.0 using AUC, and the paper reports an AUC of 0.545 for predicting DPN. The passages available from our copy do not verify the claimed model-specific values of 0.685, 0.505, 0.516 and 0.527, or explicitly associate 0.545 with BN. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Seferović, P. M., Petrie, M. C., Filippatos, G. S., Anker, S. D., Rosano, G., Bauersachs, J., Paulus, W. J., Komajda, M., Cosentino, F., de Boer, R. A., et al. (2018) · European Journal of Heart Failure · doi:10.1002/ejhf.1170 · Cited by 708 · see citing works
Discrete Bayesian Network Classifiers: A Survey
Bielza, C., & Larrañaga, P. (2014) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2576868 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- J.R. Vergara, P. A. Estevez, A review of feature selection methods based on mutual information, Neural Comput. Appl. 24 (2014) 175-186.
- K. Yu , X.D. Wu, W. Ding, Y. Mu, H. Wang, Markov Blanket Feature Selection Using Representative Sets, IEEE T. Neur. Net. Lear. 28 (2017) 2775-2788.
- Z.W. Ji, Q.B. Xia, G.M. Meng, A Review of Parameter Learning Methods in Bayesian Network, Fuzhou: ICIC. 2015.
- Ling C X, Jin H, Zhang H. AUC: a better measure than accuracy in comparing learning algorithms, Halifax: Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence Conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 2671 (2003) 329- 341.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gosak, L., Martinović, K., Lorber, M., & Stiglic, G. (2022) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/jonm.13894 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
“Liu et al. (2020) presented the AUC for the following models: BN (0.545), BN-wopi (0.685), NB (0.505), RF (0.516) and C5.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialLi, Y., Jin, N., Zhan, Q., Huang, Y., Sun, A., Yin, F., Li, Z., Hu, J., & Liu, Z. (2025) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2025.1495306 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“All studies were predominantly retrospective, comprising 14 cohort studies (26, 41, 42, 46, 48 – 52, 55, 56, 58, 61, 62), 9 cross-sectional studies (39, 40, 45, 47, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60), and 3 case-control studies (27, 43, 44).”
- Authors
- Liu, S., Zhang, R., Shang, X., & Li, W.
- Affiliations
- Beijing Jiaotong University (CN)
- University of Reading (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Runtong
- Venue
- Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-05
- Volume
- 188
- Pages
- 105302
- ISSN
- 0169-2607 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2998464787
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7
- FWCI
- 3.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes, diabetes complications, Bayesian networks, Markov blanket, self-management, complication prediction, diabetic nephropathy, diabetic foot, diabetic macrovascular complications, diabetic ketoacidosis, diabetic retinopathy, diabetic neuropathy, physiological parameters, tabu search, bootstrapping, expert knowledge, medical data mining, feature selection, model comparison
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Decision Trees, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Markov Chains, Middle Aged, Probability, Self Care, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Area Under Curve, Diabetes Complications, Young Adult
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