Cited by 16Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in HealthcareStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Machine Learning-Based Prediction for 4-Year Risk of Metabolic Syndrome in Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Open access
Zhang, Hui, Chen, Dandan, Shao, Jing, Zou, Ping, Cui, Nianqi, Tang, Leiwen, Wang, Xiyi, Wang, Dan +2 more·2021·Risk Management and Healthcare Policy

Abstract

PURPOSE: Machine learning (ML) techniques have emerged as a promising tool to predict risk and make decisions in different medical domains. We aimed to compare the predictive performance of machine learning-based methods for 4-year risk of metabolic syndrome in adults with the previous model using logistic regression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study that employed a temporal validation strategy. Three popular ML techniques were selected to build the prognostic models. These techniques were artificial neural networks, classification and regression tree, and support vector machine. The logistic regression algorithm and ML techniques used the same five predictors. Discrimination, calibration, Brier score, and decision curve analysis were compared for model performance. RESULTS: Discrimination was above 0.7 for all models except classification and regression tree model in internal validation, while the logistic regression model showed the highest discrimination in external validation (0.782) and the smallest discrimination differences. The logistic regression model had the best calibration performance, and ANN also showed satisfactory calibration in internal validation and external validation. For overall performance, logistic regression had the smallest Brier score differences in internal validation and external validation, and it also had the largest net benefit in external validation. CONCLUSION: Overall, this study indicated that the logistic regression model performed as well as the flexible ML-based prediction models at internal validation, while the logistic regression model had the best performance at external validation. For clinical use, when the performance of the logistic regression model is similar to ML-based prediction models, the simplest and more interpretable model should be chosen.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2147/rmhp.s328180

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. [2]Boudreau DM, Malone DC, Raebel MA, et al. Health care utilization and costs by metabolic syndrome risk factors. Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2009; 7(4): 305– 314. doi: 10.1089/met.2008.0070 19558267 · DOI
  2. [3]Grundy SM, Brewer HB, Cleeman JI, Smith SC, Lenfant C. Definition of metabolic syndrome. Circulation. 2004; 109(3): 433– 438. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000111245.75752.C6 14744958 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [4]Mottillo S, Filion KB, Genest J, et al. The metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56(14): 1113– 1132. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.05.034 20863953 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [5]Chen J, Muntner P, Hamm LL, Jones DW, Vecihi B. The metabolic syndrome and chronic kidney disease in U.S. adults. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 140(3): 167– 174. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-3-200402030-00007 14757614 · DOI
  5. [6]Esposito K, Chiodini P, Colao A, Lenzi A, Giugliano D. Metabolic syndrome and risk of cancer. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35(11): 2402– 2411. 23093685 PMC3476894
  6. [7]Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2019; 162(1): W1– 73. doi: 10.7326/M14-0698 25560730 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [8]Zhang H, Shao J, Chen D, et al. Reporting and methods in developing prognostic prediction models for metabolic syndrome: a systematic review and critical appraisal. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2020; 13: 4981– 4992. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S283949 33364802 PMC7751606 · DOI
  8. [9]Zhang H, Chen D, Shao J, Zou P. Development and internal validation of a prognostic model for 4 year -risk of metabolic syndrome in adults: a retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2021; 14: 2229– 2237. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S288881 34040408 PMC8140900 · DOI
  9. [10]Zhang H, Chen D, Shao J, et al. External validation of the prognostic prediction model for 4-year risk of metabolic syndrome in adults: a retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2021; 14: 3027– 3034. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S316950 34234498 PMC8257261 · DOI
  10. [11]Patel VL, Shortliffe EH, Stefanelli M, et al. The coming of age of artificial intelligence in medicine. Artif Intell Med. 2009; 46(1): 5– 17. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2008.07.017 18790621 PMC2752210 · DOI
  11. [12]Sidey-Gibbons JAM, Sidey-Gibbons CJ. Machine learning in medicine: a practical introduction. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19(1): 64. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0681-4 30890124 PMC6425557 · DOI
  12. [13]Alberti KG, Eckel RH, Grundy SM, et al. Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation. 2009; 120(16): 1640– 1645. 19805654
  13. [16]Gravesteijn BY, Nieboer D, Ercole A, et al. Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 122: 95– 107. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.005 32201256 · DOI
  14. [17]Basheer IA, Hajmeer M. Artificial neural networks: fundamentals, computing, design, and application. J Microbiol Methods. 2000; 43(1): 3– 31. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7012(00)00201-3 11084225 · DOI
  15. [18]Lemon SC, Roy J, Clark MA, Friedmann PD, Rakowski W. Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: methodological review and comparison with logistic regression. Ann Behav Med. 2003; 26(3): 172– 181. doi: 10.1207/S15324796ABM2603_02 14644693 · DOI
  16. [20]Van Calster B, Wynants L, Verbeek JFM, et al. Reporting and interpreting decision curve analysis: a guide for investigators. Eur Urol. 2018; 74(6): 796– 804. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.038 30241973 PMC6261531 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, H., Chen, D., Shao, J., Zou, P., Cui, N., Tang, L., Wang, X., Wang, D., Wu, J., & Ye, Z.
Affiliations
  • Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital (CN)
  • Nipissing University (CA)
  • Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Ye, Zhihong
Venue
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
Published
2021-10
Volume
Volume 14
Pages
4361-4368
ISSN
1179-1594 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3205747317
Cited by
16
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Risk Management and Healthcare Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (72004193)
  • National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences (20BGL275)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
metabolic syndrome, machine learning, logistic regression, artificial neural networks, classification and regression trees, support vector machine, model comparison, discrimination (statistics), calibration, Brier score, decision curve analysis, temporal validation, external validation, model interpretability

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