Is explainability the missing link in artificial intelligence-based diabetes prediction?

Abstract Background With the rising use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, the need for model transparency and interpretability is increasingly emphasized. This study aimed to identify key risk factors for diabetes and compare the predictive performance of an interpretable logistic regression (LR) model with advanced machine learning (ML) algorithms using explainable AI (XAI) tools. Methods Data were obtained from the 2016 Tunisian Health Examination Survey. LR was used to assess diabetes risk factors through adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). ML models included Decision Tree (DT), Gradient Boosting (GB), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and Random Forest (RF). Model performance was assessed via accuracy, recall, F1-score, and area under the curve (AUC). For interpretability, we used Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to visualize feature importance. Results A total of 8,894 adults were included. The diabetes prevalence was 18.9% [17.1-21.2]. Significant predictors in LR included dyslipidemia (aOR=2.98 [2.88-3.30]), low socioeconomic status (aOR=1.27 [1.16-1.38]), urban residence (aOR=1.19 [1.02-1.35]), and higher BMI (aOR=1.19 [1.11-1.29]). LR achieved an accuracy of 82.8%, recall of 97.2%, F1-score of 90.1%, and AUC of 77.8%. Among ML models, DT performed the worst (AUC=59.6%). GB and RF outperformed other models in AUC (79.7% and 77.6%, respectively), accuracy (83.3% and 83.2%), and F1-score (90.4% and 90.3%). ANN showed the highest recall (98.6%). GB was selected as the top-performing model. SHAP and LIME consistently identified age, dyslipidemia, systolic blood pressure, waist circumference, BMI, and healthcare use as top predictors. Conclusions This study illustrates the utility of XAI in enhancing the interpretability of ML models for diabetes risk prediction. Further research is needed to validate findings and promote standardized evaluation frameworks for AI in healthcare. Key messages • Explainable AI methods can improve the transparency of machine learning models used for diabetes risk prediction in population health studies. • Gradient Boosting outperformed other models, while SHAP and LIME consistently highlighted key modifiable and socio-demographic risk factors.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Public Health
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaf161.1294
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Is explainability the missing link in artificial intelligence-based diabetes prediction?

European Journal of Public Health
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
article

Is explainability the missing link in artificial intelligence-based diabetes prediction?

article en

Abstract

Abstract Background With the rising use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, the need for model transparency and interpretability is increasingly emphasized. This study aimed to identify key risk factors for diabetes and compare the predictive performance of an interpretable logistic regression (LR) model with advanced machine learning (ML) algorithms using explainable AI (XAI) tools. Methods Data were obtained from the 2016 Tunisian Health Examination Survey. LR was used to assess diabetes risk factors through adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). ML models included Decision Tree (DT), Gradient Boosting (GB), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and Random Forest (RF). Model performance was assessed via accuracy, recall, F1-score, and area under the curve (AUC). For interpretability, we used Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to visualize feature importance. Results A total of 8,894 adults were included. The diabetes prevalence was 18.9% [17.1-21.2]. Significant predictors in LR included dyslipidemia (aOR=2.98 [2.88-3.30]), low socioeconomic status (aOR=1.27 [1.16-1.38]), urban residence (aOR=1.19 [1.02-1.35]), and higher BMI (aOR=1.19 [1.11-1.29]). LR achieved an accuracy of 82.8%, recall of 97.2%, F1-score of 90.1%, and AUC of 77.8%. Among ML models, DT performed the worst (AUC=59.6%). GB and RF outperformed other models in AUC (79.7% and 77.6%, respectively), accuracy (83.3% and 83.2%), and F1-score (90.4% and 90.3%). ANN showed the highest recall (98.6%). GB was selected as the top-performing model. SHAP and LIME consistently identified age, dyslipidemia, systolic blood pressure, waist circumference, BMI, and healthcare use as top predictors. Conclusions This study illustrates the utility of XAI in enhancing the interpretability of ML models for diabetes risk prediction. Further research is needed to validate findings and promote standardized evaluation frameworks for AI in healthcare. Key messages • Explainable AI methods can improve the transparency of machine learning models used for diabetes risk prediction in population health studies. • Gradient Boosting outperformed other models, while SHAP and LIME consistently highlighted key modifiable and socio-demographic risk factors.

European Journal of Public HealthVol. 35(Supplement_4)
Tunis University (TN), Institut National de Nutrition et de Technologie Alimentaire (TN), National Heritage Institute (TN), Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (US), Tunis El Manar University (TN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 38%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.