PreprintCited by 6Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Enhancing Metabolic Syndrome Prediction with Hybrid Data Balancing and Counterfactuals

Open access
Shah, Sanyam Paresh, Mamun, Abdullah, Soumma, Shovito Barua, Ghasemzadeh, Hassan·2025·arXiv

Preprint — published as 10.1109/embc58623.2025.11253729

Abstract

Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) is a cluster of interrelated risk factors that significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes. Despite its global prevalence, accurate prediction of MetS remains challenging due to issues such as class imbalance, data scarcity, and methodological inconsistencies in existing studies. In this paper, we address these challenges by systematically evaluating and optimizing machine learning (ML) models for MetS prediction, leveraging advanced data balancing techniques and counterfactual analysis. Multiple ML models, including XGBoost, Random Forest, TabNet, etc., were trained and compared under various data balancing techniques such as random oversampling (ROS), SMOTE, ADASYN, and CTGAN. Additionally, we introduce MetaBoost, a novel hybrid framework that integrates SMOTE, ADASYN, and CTGAN, optimizing synthetic data generation through weighted averaging and iterative weight tuning to enhance the model's performance (achieving up to a 1.87% accuracy improvement over individual balancing techniques). A comprehensive counterfactual analysis is conducted to quantify the feature-level changes required to shift individuals from high-risk to low-risk categories. The results indicate that blood glucose (50.3%) and triglycerides (46.7%) were the most frequently modified features, highlighting their clinical significance in MetS risk reduction. Additionally, probabilistic analysis shows elevated blood glucose (85.5% likelihood) and triglycerides (74.9% posterior probability) as the strongest predictors. This study not only advances the methodological rigor of MetS prediction but also provides actionable insights for clinicians and researchers, highlighting the potential of ML in mitigating the public health burden of metabolic syndrome.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2504.06987

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. E. S. Ford, W. H. Giles, and W. H. Dietz, "Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome among us adults: findings from the third national health and nutrition examination survey," Jama, vol. 287, no. 3, pp. 356-359, 2002.
  2. K. G. M. Alberti, R. H. Eckel, S. M. Grundy, P. Z. Zimmet, J. I. Cleeman, K. A. Donato, J.-C. Fruchart, W. P. T. James, C. M. Loria, and S. C. Smith, "Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: A joint interim statement of the international diabetes federation task force on epidemiology and prevention; national heart, lung, and blood insti- tute; american heart association; world heart federation; international atherosclerosis society; and international association for the study of obesity," Circulation, vol. 120, no. 16, pp. 1640-1645, 2009.
  3. M. G. Saklayen, "The global epidemic of the metabolic syndrome," Current hypertension reports, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1-8, 2018.
  4. S. M. Grundy, J. I. Cleeman, S. R. Daniels, K. A. Donato, R. H. Eckel, B. A. Franklin, D. J. Gordon, R. M. Krauss, P. J. Savage, S. C. Smith Jr, et al., "Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome: an american heart association/national heart, lung, and blood institute scientific statement," Circulation, vol. 112, no. 17, pp. 2735-2752, 2005.
  5. A. Mamun, S. I. Mirzadeh, and H. Ghasemzadeh, "Designing deep neural networks robust to sensor failure in mobile health environ- ments," in 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 2442-2446, IEEE, 2022.
  6. A. Mamun, A. Arefeen, S. B. Racette, D. D. Sears, C. M. Whisner, M. P. Buman, and H. Ghasemzadeh, "Glucolens: Explainable postpran- dial blood glucose prediction from diet and physical activity," arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03935, 2025. · arXiv
  7. N. V. Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer, "Smote: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique," Journal of arti- ficial intelligence research, vol. 16, pp. 321-357, 2002.
  8. L. Xu, M. Skoularidou, A. Cuesta-Infante, and K. Veeramachaneni, "Modeling tabular data using conditional gan," Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019.
  9. A. Mamun, L. D. Devoe, M. I. Evans, D. W. Britt, J. Klein- Seetharaman, and H. Ghasemzadeh, "Use of what-if scenarios to help explain artificial intelligence models for neonatal health," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09635, 2024. · arXiv
  10. X. Chen and H. Ishwaran, "Machine learning for metabolic syndrome prediction: A systematic review," Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 98, p. 103269, 2019.
  11. J. M. Johnson and T. M. Khoshgoftaar, "Survey on deep learning with class imbalance," Journal of big data, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-54, 2019.
  12. T. Chen and C. Guestrin, "Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system," Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 785-794, 2016.
  13. S. O. Arik and T. Pfister, "Tabnet: Attentive interpretable tabular learn- ing," Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 6679-6687, 2021.
  14. G. Douzas and F. Bacao, "Improving imbalanced learning through a heuristic oversampling method based on k-means and smote," Infor- mation Sciences, vol. 465, pp. 1-20, 2018.
  15. D. Brughmans, P. Leyman, and D. Martens, "Nice: an algorithm for nearest instance counterfactual explanations," Data mining and knowledge discovery, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 2665-2703, 2024.
  16. S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, and C. Russell, "Counterfactual explana- tions without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the gdpr," Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 841- 887, 2017.
  17. D. Care, "Cardiovascular disease and risk management: standards of medical care in diabetesd 2021," Diabetes Care, vol. 44, no. January, pp. S125-S150, 2021.
  18. W. H. Organization, "Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. report of a who consultation," WHO Technical Report Series, vol. 894, pp. 1-253, 2000.
  19. I. D. Federation, "The idf consensus worldwide definition of the metabolic syndrome," Diabetes Voice, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 11-14, 2006.
  20. N. C. E. Program, "Third report of the national cholesterol education program (ncep) expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (adult treatment panel iii) final report," Circulation, vol. 106, no. 25, pp. 3143-3421, 2002.
  21. B. R. Carr, "The emerging role of hormonal regulation in the patho- genesis of the metabolic syndrome in women," The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, vol. 88, no. 6, pp. 2404-2411, 2003.
  22. K. D. I. G. O. K. C. W. Group, "Kdigo 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease," Kidney International Supplements, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-150, 2012.
  23. J. Karalliedde and G. Viberti, "Microalbuminuria and insulin resis- tance: does the link go beyond the kidney?," Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 582-584, 2005.
  24. J. Rynkiewicz, "General bound of overfitting for mlp regression models," Neurocomputing, vol. 90, pp. 106-110, 2012.

Metadata

Authors
Shah, S. P., Mamun, A., Soumma, S. B., & Ghasemzadeh, H.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Volume
2025
Pages
1-7
ISSN
2375-7477 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416963330
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3
FWCI
9.26
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
metabolic syndrome prediction, class imbalance, data balancing, SMOTE, ADASYN, CTGAN, synthetic data generation, counterfactual analysis, blood glucose, triglycerides, cardiovascular risk, type 2 diabetes risk
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Risk Factors, Metabolic Syndrome

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