A Sequential Data Preprocessing Pipeline for Diabetes Prediction: A Data Leakage Prevention and Dual-Validation Approach
Open accessAbstract
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.
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
2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: <i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024</i>
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, ElSayed, N. A., Aleppo, G., Bannuru, R. R., Bruemmer, D., Collins, B. S., Ekhlaspour, L., Gaglia, J. L., Hilliard, M. E., Johnson, E. L., et al. (2024) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc24-s002 · Cited by 2,086 · see citing works
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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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