Cited by 3Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsImbalanced Data Classification Techniques

A Sequential Data Preprocessing Pipeline for Diabetes Prediction: A Data Leakage Prevention and Dual-Validation Approach

Open access
AbdulAbbas, Ahmed Majid, Alkanany, Rafid, Al-Nuaimi, Yasir Ali Khalid, Al-Hamdawee, Zahraa Mehssen Agheeb·2025·Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research

Abstract

Machine learning approaches for diabetes prediction face methodological challenges, including data leakage from preprocessing before data splitting, inconsistent handling of missing values, and class imbalance with varying validation methods. This study presents a systematic approach that prevents data leakage and establishes standardized benchmarks for diabetes prediction. Using the PIMA Indian Diabetes Dataset (768 patients), this study applied a preprocessing pipeline: MICE for missing values (652 missing, 9.43% of data), SMOTE for class balance (500 nondiabetic vs 268 diabetic cases), and z-score normalization for feature scaling. Two feature selection methods identified six important clinical variables: Glucose, Pregnancies, Glucose_BMI, Glucose_Age, BMI, and BloodPressure. Dual validation approaches were employed, single split (80:20) and 5-fold cross-validation, to compare five machine learning algorithms: Random Forest (RF), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), XGBoost, Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Logistic Regression (LR). Experimental results demonstrated that RF achieved the highest accuracy (79.79%) in single split testing, whereas MLP performed best in cross-validation (77.81% accuracy, 84.43% ROC-AUC). All algorithms achieved ROC-AUC scores above 0.80. Cross-validation analysis revealed that RF showed consistent performance across data splits, whereas MLP demonstrated better adaptability to different data conditions.

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 · 10.48084/etasr.14155

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Authors
AbdulAbbas, A. M., Alkanany, R., Al-Nuaimi, Y. A. K., & Al-Hamdawee, Z. M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Misan (IQ)
  • Imam Alkadhim University College (IQ)
Corresponding author
AbdulAbbas, Ahmed Majid
Venue
Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research
Published
2025-12-08
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
30059-30066
ISSN
  • 1792-8036 (ISSN-L)
  • 2241-4487
OpenAlex
W4417146876
Cited by
3
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
1.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Engineering Technology & Applied Science Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Keywords
diabetes prediction, data loss prevention, preprocessing pipeline, missing data imputation, mice, SMOTE, class imbalance, cross-validation, Pima Indians diabetes dataset, feature selection, random forest, multilayer perceptron, XGBoost, support vector machine, logistic regression, benchmarking

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