Leveraging SHAP for Interpretable Diabetes Prediction: A Study of Machine Learning Models on the Pima Indians Diabetes Dataset
Open accessAbstract
This paper investigates the application of machine learning (ML) models for predicting diabetes using the Pima Indians Diabetes Database, with a focus on enhancing model interpretability through the use of SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). The study evaluates eight ML models, including Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost), k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN), Logistic Regression (LR), Multi-layer Perceptron (MLP), Naive Bayes (NB), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), utilizing both test/train split and 10-fold cross-validation methods. The RF model demonstrated superior performance, achieving an accuracy of 82% and an F1-score of 0.83 in the test/train split, and an accuracy of 83% and an F1-score of 0.84 in the 10-fold cross-validation. SHAP analysis was employed to identify the most influential predictors, revealing that glucose, BMI, pregnancies, and insulin levels are the key factors in diabetes prediction, aligning with established clinical markers. Additionally, the use of the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling TEchnique (SMOTE) for class balancing and data scaling contributes to robust model performance. The study emphasizes the necessity for interpretable ML in healthcare, proposing SHAP as a valuable tool for bridging predictive accuracy and clinical transparency in diabetes diagnostics.
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.
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
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423 · see citing works
Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Hassija, V., Chamola, V., Mahapatra, A., Singal, A., Goel, D., Huang, K., Scardapane, S., Spinelli, I., Mahmud, M., & Hussain, A. (2024) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-023-10179-8 · Cited by 2,062 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Kırbaş, İ., & Çifci, A.
- Affiliations
- Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi (TR)
- BURDUR MEHMET AKİF ERSOY ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK-MİMARLIK FAKÜLTESİ
- Venue
- Balkan Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering
- Published
- 2025-06-30
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 128-139
- ISSN
- 2147-284X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4412202047
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 3.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Balkan Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
- Keywords
- diabetes prediction, SHAP, model interpretability, Pima Indians diabetes dataset, random forest, feature importance, SMOTE, class imbalance, glucose, body mass index, diabetes diagnosis
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