Journals / Yenilikçi Mühendislik ve Doğa Bilimleri / 2026 / Volume: 6 Issue: 2

Diabetes diagnosis using a voting classifier based on machine learning and deep learning models

Yasin Karakuş(Kütahya Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi)0000-0002-4534-0151
Pınar Özen(DUMLUPINAR UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-9884-2860
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results demonstrate that the voting classifier exhibits highly balanced performance and achieves the highest scores among the compared models in terms of accuracy, precision, specificity, F1 score, and MCC metrics.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The increasing global prevalence of diabetes mellitus poses severe public health challenges, underscoring the vital need for prompt and accurate diagnostic strategies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The dataset used was obtained from Kaggle, and preprocessing steps included the removal of missing values and outliers (resulting in the removal of 35,828 records, or 35.8% of the initial data).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results demonstrate that the voting classifier exhibits highly balanced performance and achieves the highest scores among the compared models in terms of accuracy, precision, specificity, F1 score, and MCC metrics.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Diabetes Prediction · Machine Learning · Deep Learning

Abstract

The increasing global prevalence of diabetes mellitus poses severe public health challenges, underscoring the vital need for prompt and accurate diagnostic strategies. In this study, machine learning and deep learning-based models were individually evaluated for diabetes prediction, and the best-performing models were subsequently combined using a voting classifier structure. The dataset used was obtained from Kaggle, and preprocessing steps included the removal of missing values and outliers (resulting in the removal of 35,828 records, or 35.8% of the initial data). Statistical analysis showed that none of the continuous variables followed a normal distribution, and Mann-Whitney U tests revealed statistically significant differences between diabetic and non-diabetic groups. Five machine learning algorithms—Random Forest, XGBoost, Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, and Support Vector Machine—and two deep learning models—Multilayer Perceptron and TabNet—were assessed based on accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. The top-performing models (RF, XGBoost, MLP, and TabNet) were integrated using a soft voting approach. The results demonstrate that the voting classifier exhibits highly balanced performance and achieves the highest scores among the compared models in terms of accuracy, precision, specificity, F1 score, and MCC metrics. However, it is notable that for the Recall metric-which is clinically critical for primary disease screening- the individual MLP (0.7000) and XGBoost (0.6964) models outperformed the ensemble structure. These findings emphasise that ensemble learning structures, which combine the strengths of multiple models, can provide more reliable decision support in critical areas such as healthcare. For future research, the generalizability of the model can be enhanced by using datasets with a broader range of features, and real-time adaptive systems supported by cloud computing technologies can be developed to improve the responsiveness and efficiency of diabetes prediction models.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karakuş, Y., Özen, P. (2026). Diabetes diagnosis using a voting classifier based on machine learning and deep learning models. Yenilikçi Mühendislik ve Doğa Bilimleri, Volume: 6 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.61112/jiens.1815614

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (24)

  1. World Health Organization (2024) Diabetes. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/diabetes. Accessed 11 February 2026.
  2. Khanam JJ, Foo SY (2021) A comparison of machine learning algorithms for diabetes prediction. ICT Express 7(4):432–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icte.2021.02.004
  3. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC) (2024) Worldwide trends in diabetes prevalence and treatment from 1990 to 2022: a pooled analysis of 1108 population-representative studies with 185 million participants. The Lancet 404:2773-2798. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02317-1
  4. GBD 2021 Diabetes Collaborators (2023) Global, regional, and national burden of diabetes from 1990 to 2021, with projections of prevalence to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet 402:203-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01301-6
  5. Choi SG, Oh M, Park D, Lee B, Lee Y, Jee SH (2023) Comparisons of the prediction models for undiagnosed diabetes between machine learning versus traditional statistical methods. Sci Rep 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40170-0
  6. Yang H et al (2021) Risk prediction of diabetes: Big data mining with fusion of multifarious physical examination indicators. Inf Fusion 75:140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2021.02.015
  7. Almutairi E, Abbod M, Hunaiti Z (2025) Prediction of diabetes using statistical and machine learning modelling techniques. Algorithms 18(3):145. https://doi.org/10.3390/a18030145
  8. Sun Q, Cheng X, Han K, Sun Y, Ren H, Li P (2024) Machine learning-based assessment of diabetes risk. Appl Intell 55(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-024-05912-1
  9. Dashdondov K, Lee S, Erdenebat MU (2024) Enhancing diabetes prediction and prevention through Mahalanobis distance and machine learning integration. Appl Sci 14(17):7480. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14177480
  10. Naz H, Ahuja S (2020) Deep learning approach for diabetes prediction using Pima Indian dataset. J Diabetes Metab Disord 19(1):391–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40200-020-00520-5
  11. Wu Y-T et al (2020) Early prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus in the Chinese population via advanced machine learning. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 106(3). https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa899
  12. Zhou H, Myrzashova R, Zheng R (2020) Diabetes prediction model based on an enhanced deep neural network. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw 2020(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13638-020-01765-7
  13. Alex SA, Nayahi JJ, Shine H, Gopirekha V (2021) Deep convolutional neural network for diabetes mellitus prediction. Neural Comput Appl 34(2):1319–1327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06431-7
  14. Kurt B et al (2023) Prediction of gestational diabetes using deep learning and Bayesian optimization and traditional machine learning techniques. Med Biol Eng Comput 61(7):1649–1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-023-02800-7
  15. Li W, Peng Y, Peng K (2024) Diabetes prediction model based on GA-XGBoost and stacking ensemble algorithm. PLoS One 19(9):e0311222. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311222
  16. Zhuang K, Zhang C, Chen Z, She T, Wang M (2025) Integrating convolutional neural networks with ensemble methods for enhanced diabetes diagnosis: a multi-dataset evaluation. Front Med 12:1657889. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1657889
  17. Mustafa M (2023) Diabetes prediction dataset [Version 1]. Kaggle. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/iammustafatz/diabetes-prediction-dataset. Accessed 17 April 2026.
  18. International Diabetes Federation (2021) IDF Diabetes Atlas, 10th edn. Brussels, Belgium. https://diabetesatlas.org/
  19. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010933404324
  20. Chen T, Guestrin C (2016) XGBoost. In: Proc 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int Conf Knowl Discov Data Min, San Francisco, USA, pp 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785
  21. Chellappan D, Rajaguru H (2023) Detection of diabetes through microarray genes with enhancement of classifiers performance. Diagnostics 13(16):2654. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13162654
  22. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00994018
  23. Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ (1986) Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature 323(6088):533-536. https://doi.org/10.1038/323533a0
  24. Arik SO, Pfister T (2021) TabNet: Attentive interpretable tabular learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 35:6679-6687. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16826