Risk prediction of diabetic nephropathy using machine learning techniques: A pilot study with secondary data
Abstract
Aims This research work presented a comparative study of machine learning (ML), including two objectives: (i) determination of the risk factors of diabetic nephropathy (DN) based on principal component analysis (PCA) via different cutoffs; (ii) prediction of DN patients using ML-based techniques. Methods The combination of PCA and ML-based techniques has been implemented to select the best features at different PCA cutoff values and choose the optimal PCA cutoff in which ML-based techniques give the highest accuracy. These optimum features are fed into six ML-based techniques: linear discriminant analysis, support vector machine (SVM), logistic regression, K-nearest neighborhood, naïve Bayes, and artificial neural network. The leave-one-out cross-validation protocol is executed and compared ML-based techniques performance using accuracy and area under the curve (AUC). Results The data utilized in this work consists of 133 respondents having 73 DN patients with an average age of 69.6±10.2 years and 54.2% of DN patients are female. Our findings illustrate that PCA combined with SVM-RBF classifier yields 88.7% accuracy and 0.91 AUC at 0.96 PCA cutoff. Conclusions This study also suggests that PCA combined with SVM-RBF classifier may correctly classify DN patients with the highest accuracy when compared to the models published in the existing research. Prospective studies are warranted to further validate the applicability of our model in clinical settings.
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?
A separate study involving 133 diabetic patients combined PCA with SVM, achieving 88.7% accuracy, demonstrating the effectiveness of feature selection combined with ML.
“A separate study involving 133 diabetic patients combined principal component analysis (PCA) with SVM, achieving 88.7% accuracy, demonstrating the effectiveness of feature selection combined with ML [72].”
From Artificial intelligence-powered prediction of diabetic complications: from clinical data to molecular omics (2026) · cites this paper as [72]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Maniruzzaman, M., Islam, M. M., Rahman, M. J., Hasan, M. A. M., & Shin, J.
- Affiliations
- Khulna University (BD)
- University of Rajshahi (BD)
- University of Aizu (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Maniruzzaman, Md.
- Venue
- Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-09
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 102263
- ISSN
- 1871-4021 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3197251535
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 4.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome Clinical Research & Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- diabetic nephropathy, risk prediction, risk factors, principal component analysis, feature selection, support vector machine, Gaussian kernel, machine learning classification, diabetes complications
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Bayes Theorem, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diabetic Nephropathies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Prognosis, Reproducibility of Results, Case-Control Studies, Risk Assessment, Principal Component Analysis, Support Vector Machine
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