Evidence Hub

Identification and prediction of association patterns between nutrient intake and anemia using machine learning techniques: results from a cross-sectional study with university female students from Palestine

Radwan Qasrawi, M. Badrasawi, Diala Abu Al-Halawa, Stephanny Vicuna Polo, Rami Abu Khader, Haneen Al-Taweel, Reem Abu Alwafa, Rana Zahdeh et al.

European Journal of Nutrition, 2024

755 participants · 16 citations

Abstract

This study utilized data mining and machine learning (ML) techniques to identify new patterns and classifications of the associations between nutrient intake and anemia among university students. We employed K-means clustering analysis algorithm and Decision Tree (DT) technique to identify the association between anemia and vitamin and mineral intakes. We normalized and balanced the data based on anemia weighted clusters for improving ML models’ accuracy. In addition, t-tests and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were performed to identify significant differences between the clusters. We evaluated the models on a balanced dataset of 755 female participants from the Hebron district in Palestine. Our study found that 34.8% of the participants were anemic. The intake of various micronutrients (i.e., folate, Vit A, B5, B6, B12, C, E, Ca, Fe, and Mg) was below RDA/AI values, which indicated an overall unbalanced malnutrition in the present cohort. Anemia was significantly associated with intakes of energy, protein, fat, Vit B1, B5, B6, C, Mg, Cu and Zn. On the other hand, intakes of protein, Vit B2, B5, B6, C, E, choline, folate, phosphorus, Mn and Zn were significantly lower in anemic than in non-anemic subjects. DT classification models for vitamins and minerals (accuracy rate: 82.1%) identified an inverse association between intakes of Vit B2, B3, B5, B6, B12, E, folate, Zn, Mg, Fe and Mn and prevalence of anemia. Besides the nutrients commonly known to be linked to anemia—like…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 755 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free