IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i21p14280-d960151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accuracy of Machine Learning Classification Models for the Prediction of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Survey and Meta-Analysis Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Micheal O. Olusanya

    (Department of Computer Science and Information Technology, Sol Plaatje University, Kimberley 8300, South Africa)

  • Ropo Ebenezer Ogunsakin

    (Biostatistics Unit, Discipline of Public Health Medicine, School of Nursing & Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa)

  • Meenu Ghai

    (Discipline of Genetics, School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa)

  • Matthew Adekunle Adeleke

    (Discipline of Genetics, School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa)

Abstract

Soft-computing and statistical learning models have gained substantial momentum in predicting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) disease. This paper reviews recent soft-computing and statistical learning models in T2DM using a meta-analysis approach. We searched for papers using soft-computing and statistical learning models focused on T2DM published between 2010 and 2021 on three different search engines. Of 1215 studies identified, 34 with 136952 patients met our inclusion criteria. The pooled algorithm’s performance was able to predict T2DM with an overall accuracy of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] of [0.82, 0.89]). The classification of diabetes prediction was significantly greater in models with a screening and diagnosis (pooled proportion [95% CI] = 0.91 [0.74, 0.97]) when compared to models with nephropathy (pooled proportion = 0.48 [0.76, 0.89] to 0.88 [0.83, 0.91]). For the prediction of T2DM, the decision trees (DT) models had a pooled accuracy of 0.88 [95% CI: 0.82, 0.92], and the neural network (NN) models had a pooled accuracy of 0.85 [95% CI: 0.79, 0.89]. Meta-regression did not provide any statistically significant findings for the heterogeneous accuracy in studies with different diabetes predictions, sample sizes, and impact factors. Additionally, ML models showed high accuracy for the prediction of T2DM. The predictive accuracy of ML algorithms in T2DM is promising, mainly through DT and NN models. However, there is heterogeneity among ML models. We compared the results and models and concluded that this evidence might help clinicians interpret data and implement optimum models for their dataset for T2DM prediction.

Suggested Citation

  • Micheal O. Olusanya & Ropo Ebenezer Ogunsakin & Meenu Ghai & Matthew Adekunle Adeleke, 2022. "Accuracy of Machine Learning Classification Models for the Prediction of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Survey and Meta-Analysis Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-19, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14280-:d:960151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14280/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14280/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ramon Casanova & Santiago Saldana & Sean L Simpson & Mary E Lacy & Angela R Subauste & Chad Blackshear & Lynne Wagenknecht & Alain G Bertoni, 2016. "Prediction of Incident Diabetes in the Jackson Heart Study Using High-Dimensional Machine Learning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chao-Yu Guo & Min-Yang Wu & Hao-Min Cheng, 2021. "The Comprehensive Machine Learning Analytics for Heart Failure," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-17, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14280-:d:960151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.