Volume 25, Issue 5 (12-2025)
ijdld 2025, 25(5): 381-394 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Zarooj hosseini K, Taheri R, Golabpour A. Comparison of Synthetic Performance with Conventional Methods on Guideline in Predictive Diagnosis: A Systematic Review. ijdld 2025; 25 (5) :381-394
URL: http://ijdld.tums.ac.ir/article-1-6402-en.html
URL: http://ijdld.tums.ac.ir/article-1-6402-en.html
1- Student Research Committee, Department of Health Information Technology and Management, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran
3- Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran ,a.golabpour@shmu.ac.ir
2- Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran
3- Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran ,
Abstract: (468 Views)
Background: Diabetes is a serious global health problem, and effective methods for its prediction and management are essential. Conventional diagnostic approaches typically rely on tests such as oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Machine learning has the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy; however, its performance and alignment with clinical guidelines require thorough evaluation.
Methods: This narrative review examines the effectiveness of machine learning in the early diagnosis of diabetes. Articles were selected based on predefined criteria and analyzed in terms of algorithm classification, output measures, involvement of clinical experts, and interpretability. Evaluation metrics such as accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), specificity and sensitivity were used to assess algorithmic performance. Relevant studies comparing prediabetes diagnosis using artificial intelligence and conventional methods were reviewed, and clinical guidelines from both domains were extracted and compared.
Results: Analysis of 41 articles showed that ANN, LR, and DNN were the most frequently used algorithms. Only 2% of the studies incorporated clinical rules and physician involvement, and 12% demonstrated model interpretability. While conventional methods rely on HbA1c and FPG tests, no clinical guidelines currently exist for AI-based diagnosis. Machine learning algorithms outperformed traditional methods, showing 29% higher sensitivity and 23% higher specificity.
Conclusion: Although artificial intelligence demonstrates superior performance in prediabetes diagnosis, limitations such as lack of interpretability and the absence of standardized clinical guidelines hinder its current clinical application. Addressing these challenges could enable AI to become a more efficient and reliable diagnostic tool.
Methods: This narrative review examines the effectiveness of machine learning in the early diagnosis of diabetes. Articles were selected based on predefined criteria and analyzed in terms of algorithm classification, output measures, involvement of clinical experts, and interpretability. Evaluation metrics such as accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), specificity and sensitivity were used to assess algorithmic performance. Relevant studies comparing prediabetes diagnosis using artificial intelligence and conventional methods were reviewed, and clinical guidelines from both domains were extracted and compared.
Results: Analysis of 41 articles showed that ANN, LR, and DNN were the most frequently used algorithms. Only 2% of the studies incorporated clinical rules and physician involvement, and 12% demonstrated model interpretability. While conventional methods rely on HbA1c and FPG tests, no clinical guidelines currently exist for AI-based diagnosis. Machine learning algorithms outperformed traditional methods, showing 29% higher sensitivity and 23% higher specificity.
Conclusion: Although artificial intelligence demonstrates superior performance in prediabetes diagnosis, limitations such as lack of interpretability and the absence of standardized clinical guidelines hinder its current clinical application. Addressing these challenges could enable AI to become a more efficient and reliable diagnostic tool.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
