,
Jamia Hamdard University India
,
Jamia Hamdard University India
,
Jamia Hamdard University India
,
Jamia Hamdard University India
Jamia Millia Islamia India
Diabetes Mellitus is a significant world health and early detection is of paramount significance since it decreases the complications and enables medical intervention in time. The paper is a comparison between the predictive accuracy of the eight Machine Learning classifiers: Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Naive Bayes, k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN), and an Ensemble model on the Pima Indian Diabetes dataset and a collection of clinical-biological patient records. Performance evaluation was conducted using Precision, Recall, F1-Score, and the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC-ROC). The findings show that a significant difference was observed among the models, with SVM (AUC-ROC: 0.8648) and the Logistic Regression (AUC-ROC: 0.8638) having the best discriminative ability. A comparable study found that Logistic Regression had the highest Precision (0.7632), indicating fewer false-positive predictions, whereas Decision Tree had the highest Recall (0.7447), indicating greater sensitivity in detecting diabetes cases. The ensemble learning produced the best overall performance (AUC-ROC: 0.8709), suggesting that combining predictions from multiple models increases reliability and generalization. On the other hand, k-NN performed worst due to sensitivity to noise and the number of features. In general, the results provide evidence of the high potential of linear-margin and ensemble-based models to structured clinical data and would be a robust foundation of clinical decision support systems, which further help to broaden the role of ML-based analytics in early diabetes diagnosis and preventive health care planning.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC) License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
0
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.