Towards Transparent Diabetes Prediction: Combining AutoML and Explainable AI for Improved Clinical Insights
Open accessAbstract
Diabetes is a global health challenge that requires early detection for effective management. This study integrates Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) with Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) to improve diabetes risk prediction and enhance model interpretability for healthcare professionals. Using the Pima Indian Diabetes dataset, we developed an ensemble model with 85.01% accuracy leveraging AutoGluon’s AutoML framework. To address the “black-box” nature of machine learning, we applied XAI techniques, including SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME), Integrated Gradients (IG), Attention Mechanism (AM), and Counterfactual Analysis (CA), providing both global and patient-specific insights into critical risk factors such as glucose and BMI. These methods enable transparent and actionable predictions, supporting clinical decision-making. An interactive Streamlit application was developed to allow clinicians to explore feature importance and test hypothetical scenarios. Cross-validation confirmed the model’s robust performance across diverse datasets. This study demonstrates the integration of AutoML with XAI as a pathway to achieving accurate, interpretable models that foster transparency and trust while supporting actionable clinical decisions.
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
Machine Learning Methods to Predict Diabetes Complications
Dagliati, A., Marini, S., Sacchi, L., Cogni, G., Teliti, M., Tibollo, V., De Cata, P., Chiovato, L., & Bellazzi, R. (2018) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/1932296817706375 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
Counterfactual Explanations and Algorithmic Recourses for Machine Learning: A Review
Verma, S., Boonsanong, V., Hoang, M., Hines, K. E., Dickerson, J. P., & Shah, C. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.10596 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Hasan, R., Dattana, V., Mahmood, S., & Hussain, S.
- Affiliations
- Southampton Solent University (GB)
- Digital Transformation, Oman College of Management & Technology, P.O. Box 680, Barka 320, Oman
- Department of Computer Science, Nazeer Hussain University, ST-2, near Karimabad, Karachi 75950, Pakistan
- Northumbria University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hasan, Raza
- Venue
- Information
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2024-12-26
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7
- ISSN
- 2078-2489 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4405810319
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 15
- FWCI
- 5.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Information (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Solent University Research Portal (Solent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- diabetes risk prediction, automated machine learning, explainable AI, Pima Indians diabetes dataset, SHAP, lime, integrated gradients, attention mechanism, counterfactual analysis, ensemble learning, AutoGluon, clinical decision support, feature importance, Streamlit web application
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