A Unified Three-Stage Machine Learning Framework for Diabetes Detection, Subtype Discrimination, and Cognitive-Metabolic Hypothesis Testing
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Diabetes mellitus affects over 537 million adults worldwide and remains a major challenge in preventive healthcare. Existing machine-learning studies primarily formulate diabetes prediction as a binary classification problem, while subtype-oriented analysis and glycaemic-cognitive associations remain comparatively underexplored. We present a reproducible three-stage machine learning framework for diabetes detection, subtype-oriented clustering, and metabolic-cognitive association analysis. In Stage 1, five supervised classifiers together with a stacking ensemble are benchmarked on the NCSU Diabetes Dataset using stratified five-fold cross-validation and evaluation metrics including ROC-AUC, balanced accuracy, recall, and F1-score. SVM-RBF and Logistic Regression achieve the highest ROC-AUC (0.825 ± 0.026), while Random Forest achieves the highest accuracy (0.762 ± 0.030). SHAP explainability identifies Glucose, BMI, and Age as the dominant predictive biomarkers. In Stage 2, silhouette-validated K-Means clustering (k=2, silhouette ≈ 0.116) is applied to confirmed diabetic cases using Glucose, Insulin, and Age, recovering clinically plausible subtype-oriented partitions without requiring ground-truth subtype labels. In Stage 3, statistical analysis of the Ohio Longitudinal Cognitive Dataset (n=373) reveals a significant positive association between glycaemic control and cognitive function (ρs = 0.208, p = 5.29 × 10-5), which survives Holm correction. The findings support the utility of statistically grounded and interpretable ML pipelines for reproducible diabetes analytics and subtype-aware exploratory analysis.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 1 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 May 2026.
Builds on
1 of 21 references.
References · 1
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
Built on by
Not cited yet.