Cited by 25Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and Research

Artificial Intelligence in Health Data Analysis: The Darwinian Evolution Theory Suggests an Extremely Simple and Zero-Cost Large-Scale Screening Tool For Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes

Open access
Buccheri, Enrico, Dell'Aquila, Daniele, Russo, Marco·2021·Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

Abstract

Aims The effective identification of individuals with early dysglycemia status is key to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes. We develop and validate a novel zero-cost tool that significantly simplifies the screening of undiagnosed dysglycemia. Methods We use NHANES cross-sectional data over 10 years (2007-2016) to derive an equation that links non-laboratory exposure variables to the possible presence of undetected dysglycemia. For the first time, we adopt a novel artificial intelligence approach based on the Darwinian evolutionary theory to analyze health data. We collected data for 47 variables. Results Age and waist circumference are the only variables required to use the model. To identify undetected dysglycemia, we obtain an area under the curve (AUC) of 75.3%. Sensitivity and specificity are 0.65 and 0.73 by using the optimal threshold value determined from external validation data. Conclusions The use of uniquely two variables allows to obtain a zero-cost screening tool of analogous precision than that of more complex tools widely adopted in the literature. The newly developed tool has clinical use as it significantly simplifies the screening of dysglycemia. Furthermore, we suggest that the definition of an age-related waist circumference cut-off might help to improve existing diabetes risk factors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diabres.2021.108722

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Anthropometric measures, particularly those estimating abdominal obesity such as waist circumference, serve as powerful predictors in machine learning models for diabetes risk assessment.

    “Recent advances have demonstrated that anthropometric measures, particularly those estimating abdominal obesity such as waist circumference, serve as powerful predictors in machine learning models for diabetes risk assessment (35).”
  • Buccheri et al. demonstrated a zero-cost screening tool using only age and waist circumference achieved 75.3% area under the curve for detecting undiagnosed dysglycemia, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.65 and 0.73 respectively.

    “Remarkably, Buccheri et al. demonstrated that a zero-cost screening tool utilising only two variables, age and waist circumference, could achieve 75.3% area under the curve (AUC) for detecting undiagnosed dysglycemia, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.65 and 0.73 respectively (35).”
  • The richness of NHANES data has been particularly valuable in identifying novel predictors such as waist circumference as a powerful indicator of diabetes risk.

    “The richness of NHANES data, spanning decades of collection and including detailed anthropometric measurements, laboratory results, and lifestyle factors, has been particularly valuable in identifying novel predictors such as waist circumference as a powerful indicator of diabetes risk (35).”
  • NHANES data has enabled the development of sophisticated machine learning algorithms for prediabetes prediction, with studies demonstrating superior performance compared to traditional screening tools through feature selection techniques.

    “NHANES data has enabled the development of sophisticated machine learning algorithms for prediabetes prediction, with studies demonstrating superior performance compared to traditional screening tools through feature selection techniques applied to comprehensive exposure variables (34-36).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buccheri, E., Dell'Aquila, D., & Russo, M.
Affiliations
University of Catania (IT)
Corresponding author
Buccheri, Enrico
Venue
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
174
Pages
108722
ISSN
0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3135607728
Cited by
24
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UnissResearch (Università degli Studi di Sassari) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, diabetes screening, dysglycemia, Darwinian evolution, artificial intelligence, waist circumference, NHANES, risk prediction model
MeSH terms
Data Analysis, Artificial Intelligence, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nutrition Surveys, Prediabetic State, Evolution, Molecular

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