Enhancing Type 2 Diabetes Diagnosis with Evolutionary Algorithms and Machine Learning

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 ($0.825 \pm 0.026$), while Random Forest achieves the highest accuracy ($0.762 \pm 0.030$). SHAP explainability identifies Glucose, BMI, and Age as the dominant predictive biomarkers. In Stage 2, silhouette-validated K-Means clustering ($k=2$, silhouette $\approx 0.116$) 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 ($ρ_s = 0.208$, $p = 5.29 \times 10^{-5}$), 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.

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasingly recognised as a systemic disease characterised by coordinated dysfunction across metabolic, renal, lipid, and inflammatory pathways. Existing clinical assessments often fail to capture this multi-dimensional burden. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 1,195 patients using routinely collected laboratory biomarkers. System-level abnormality indices were constructed to quantify organ-specific dysfunction, and multi-system involvement was defined as abnormalities in two or more systems. Supervised machine learning models, including logistic regression, random forest, and gradient boosting, were trained to predict multi-system dysregulation. Model interpretability was achieved using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Results: The gradient boosting model demonstrated near-perfect discrimination (AUC = 1.000), significantly outperforming logistic regression (AUC = 0.925). Feature attribution analysis revealed that hyperglycaemia, renal impairment, dyslipidaemia, and inflammation were the dominant drivers of multi-system risk. Dose-response relationships observed in partial dependence analyses further supported the biological plausibility of model predictions. Conclusion: This study presents an interpretable, data-driven framework for quantifying systemic disease burden in T2DM. By linking routine biomarkers to multi-organ dysfunction, our approach provides both predictive accuracy and mechanistic insight, offering potential for improved risk stratification and precision medicine in diabetes care. The data and code used in this study are openly available on GitHub at: https://github.com/MiniHanWang/Type-2-Diabetes-1.git

A digital twin (DT) for type 1 diabetes (T1D) can predict how an individual's blood glucose will respond to different insulin treatments without actually trying them. For each treatment, downstream statistics of predicted glucose trajectories, such as glycemic risk, can be computed to guide clinical decisions. However, the quality of DTs is usually measured by the accuracy of their predicted glucose trajectories, which may not reflect the quality of the downstream treatment decisions they inform. In this work, we directly evaluate DTs by this decision quality on downstream treatment ranking, i.e., whether a DT predicts glucose trajectories that can be used to rank candidate treatments as the real patient would. We present an evaluation protocol over 30 virtual patients from the FDA-accepted UVA/Padova model, each simulated under 21 different basal-bolus treatments. For each patient, a DT is fitted under one treatment and then produces glucose trajectories for the remaining 20 treatments. Our results show that prediction accuracy and decision quality disagree. A baseline that models the average patient, never seeing the individual's glucose data, has the lowest prediction accuracy of all six methods (RMSE: 63.6 mg/dL) but ranks treatments with the second-highest mean Spearman (0.766), while a black-box neural network that predicts glucose nearly twice as accurately (RMSE: 32.9 mg/dL) ranks them no better than a random ordering of the 20 treatments (0.049 Spearman). Therefore, selecting a DT based on prediction accuracy alone can prefer one that recommends treatments at chance, and decision quality must be evaluated directly rather than assumed to follow from prediction accuracy.