The purpose of this study is to predict the weight loss by applying machine learning using real-world clinical data from overweight and obese adults on weight loss program in 4 Korean Medicine obesity clinics.

Methods

From January, 2017 to May, 2019, we collected data from overweight and obese adults (BMI≥23 kg/m2) who registered for a 3-month Gamitaeeumjowi-tang prescription program. Predictive analysis was conducted at the time of three prescriptions, and the expected reduced rate and reduced weight at the next order of prescription were predicted as binary classification (classification benchmark: highest quartile, median, lowest quartile). For the median, further analysis was conducted after using the variable selection method. The data set for each analysis was 25,988 in the first, 6,304 in the second, and 833 in the third. 5-fold cross validation was used to prevent overfitting.

Results

Prediction accuracy was increased from 1^st to 2^nd and 3^rd analysis. After selecting the variables based on the median, artificial neural network showed the highest accuracy in 1^st (54.69%), 2^nd (73.52%), and 3^rd (81.88%) prediction analysis based on reduced rate. The prediction performance was additionally confirmed through AUC, Random Forest showed the highest in 1^st (0.640), 2^nd (0.816), and 3^rd (0.939) prediction analysis based on reduced weight.

Conclusions

The prediction of weight loss by applying machine learning showed that the accuracy was improved by using the initial weight loss information. There is a possibility that it can be used to screen patients who need intensive intervention when expected weight loss is low.

Keywords: Machine learning; Obesity; Weight loss; Artificial intelligence

Fig. 1

Flowchart of dataset for analysis

Fig. 2

Data analytics lifecycle

Fig. 3

A schematic diagram of prediction analyses of weight loss.

The analysis for predicting weight loss was divided into three parts, and the weight loss at each time point refers to the change from the initial point of treatment to the point of weight report.

Fig. 4

Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves

Table 1A

Independent Variables Used in the First Analysis (n=25,988)

Table 1B

Independent Variables Used in the 2^nd Analysis (n=6,304)

Table 1C

Independent Variables Used in the 3^rd Analysis (n=833)

Table 2

Model Performance for Quartile Classification Bench Mark

Table 3

Features of First and Fourth Quartile based on First Prediction Analysis

Table 4

Model Performance according to Variables Ranking Based on Feature Importance

Table 5

Prediction Model Performance Results based on AUC

References

1. Hill JO, Wyatt HR, Peters JC. Energy balance and obesity. Circulation 2012;126(1):126–32.

2. Haidar YM, Cosman BC. Obesity epidemiology. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2011;24(4):205–10.

3. Wall KC, Politzer CS, Chahla J, Garrigues GE. Obesity is associated with an increased prevalence of glenohumeral osteoarthritis and arthroplasty: A cohort study. Orthop Clin N Am 2020;51(2):259–264.

4. Kolb R, Sutterwala FS, Zhang W. Obesity and cancer: inflammation bridges the two. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2016;29:77–89.

5. Handjieva-Darlenska T, Handjiev S, Larsen TM, Baak MA, Jebb S, Papadaki A, et al. Initial weight loss on an 800-kcal diet as a predictor of weight loss success after 8 weeks: the Diogenes study. Eur J Clin Nutr 2010;64(9):994–9.

6. Hollis JF, Gullion CM, Stevens VJ, Brantley PJ, Appel LJ, Ard JD, et al. Weight loss during the intensive intervention phase of the weight-loss maintenance trial. Am J Prev Med 2008;35(2):118–26.

7. Reed JR, Yates BC, Houfek J, Briner W, Schmid KK, Pullen CH. Motivational Factors Predict Weight Loss in Rural Adults. Public Health Nurs 2016;33(3):232–241.

8. Annesi JJ, Whitaker AC. Psychological factors discriminating between successful and unsuccessful weight loss in a behavioral exercise and nutrition education treatment. Int J Behav Med 2010;17(3):168–75.

9. Fabricatore AN, Wadden TA, Moore RH, Butryn ML, Heymsfield SB, Nguyen AM. Predictors of attrition and weight loss success: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Behav Res Ther 2009;47(8):685–91.

10. Hadziabdic MO, Mucalo I, Hrabac P, Matic T, Rahelic D, Bozikov V. Factors predictive of drop-out and weight loss success in weight management of obese patients. J Hum Nutr Diet 2015;28(2):24–32.

11. Batterham M, Tapsell LC, Charlton KE. Predicting dropout in dietary weight loss trials using demographic and early weight change characteristics: Implications for trial design. Obes Res Clin Pract 2016;10(2):189–96.

12. Kang EY, Park YB, Kim MY, Park YJ. A Study on Factors Associated with Weight Loss by ‘Gamitaeeumjowee-Tang’ . J Korean Med Obes Res 2017;17(2):68–72.

13. Batterham M, Tapsell L, Charlton K, O’Shea J, Thorne R. Using data mining to predict success in a weight loss trial. J Hum Nutr Diet 2017;30(4):471–478.

14. Rajkomar A, Dean J, Kohane I. Machine Learning in Medicine. N Engl J Med 2019;380:1347–1358.

15. Kim H, Yang SB, Kang Y, Park YB, Kim JH. Machine learning approach to blood stasis pattern identification based on self-reported symptoms. Korean J Acupunct 2016;33(3):102–113.

16. Sharma K, Kaur A, Gujral S. Brain tumor detection based on machine learning algorithms. Int J Comput Appl 2014;103(1):7–11.

17. Kourou K, Exarchos TP, Exarchos KP, Karamouzis MV, Fotiadis DI. Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 2015;13:8–17.

18. Wu CC, Hsu WD, Islam MM, Poly TN, Yang HC, Nguyen PA, et al. An artificial intelligence approach to early predict non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with chest pain. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2019;173:109–117.

19. Wang S, Summers RM. Machine learning and radiology. Med Image Anal 2012;16(5):933–51.

20. Dugan TM, Mukhopadhyay S, Carroll A, Downs S. Machine Learning Techniques for Prediction of Early Childhood Obesity. Appl Clin Inform 2015;6(3):506–520.

21. Hammond R, Athanasiadou R, Curado S, Aphinyanaphongs Y, Abrams C, Messito MJ, et al. Predicting childhood obesity using electronic health records and publicly available data. PLoS ONE 14(4)e0215571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215571 .

22. Aswani A, Kaminsky P, Mintz Y, Flowers E, Fukuoka Y. Behavioral Modeling in Weight Loss Interventions. Eur J Oper Res 2019;272(3):1058–1072.

23. Kim YM, Cho DG, Kang SH. Analysis of Factors associated with Geographic Variations in the Prevalence of Adult Obesity using Decision Tree. Health Soc Sci 2014;36(1):157–181.

24. Nam SH, Kim SY, Lim YW, Park YB. Review on predictors of weight loss in obesity treatment. J Korean Med Obes Res 2018;18(2):115–127.

25. Yoon NR, Yoo YJ, Kim MJ, Kim SY, Lim YW, Lim HH, et al. Analysis of adverse events in weight loss program in combination with ‘Gamitaeeumjowee-Tang’ and low-calorie diet. J Korean Med Obes Res 2018;18(1):1–9.

26. Kurs MB, Rudnicki WR. Feature Selection with the Boruta Package. J Stat Softw 2010;36(11):1–13.

27. Jung D, Kim G, Park J, Lee H, Kim H, Choi H, et al. Prediction of rehospitalization of patients and finding causes of it with data mashup and bigdata analysis. Entrue J Inf Technol 2015;14(3):133–149.

28. Díaz-Uriarte R, Andrés SA. Gene selection and classification of microarray data using random forest. BMC Bioinformatics 2006;7:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-3 .

29. Ortega Hinojosa AM, MacLeod KE, Balmes J, Jerrett M. Influence of school environments on childhood obesity in California. Environ Res 2018;166:100–107.

30. Munger E, Choi H, Dey AK, Elnabawi YA, Groenendyk JW, Rodante J, et al. Application of machine learning to determine top predictors of noncalcified coronary burden in psoriasis: An observational cohort study”. J Am Acad Dermatol 2019;Article in presshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2019.10.060 .

31. Scheinker D, Valencia A, Rodriguez F. Identification of factors associated with variation in US county-level obesity prevalence rates using epidemiologic vs machine learning models. JAMA Netw Open 2019;2(4):e192884.

32. Forman EM, Kerrigan SG, Butryn ML, Juarascio AS, Manasse SM, Ontañón S, et al. Can the artificial intelligence technique of reinforcement learning use continuously-monitored digital data to optimize treatment for weight loss? J Behav Med 2019;42(2):276–290.

33. Hong N, Wen A, Stone DJ, Tsuji S, Kingsbury PR, Rasmussen LV, et al. Developing a FHIR-based EHR phenotyping framework: A case study for identification of patients with obesity and multiple comorbidities from discharge summaries. J Biomed Inform 2019;99103310https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103310 .

34. Han JY, Park YJ. Analysis of factors influencing obesity treatment according to initial condition and compliance with medication. J Korean Med Obes Res 2019;19(1):31–41.

35. Magkos F, Fraterrigo G, Yoshino J, Luecking C, Kirbach K, Kelly SC. Effects of Moderate and Subsequent Progressive Weight Loss on Metabolic Function and Adipose Tissue Biology in Humans with Obesity. Cell Metab 2016;23(4):591–601.

36. Jo GW, Ok JM, Kim SY, Lim YW. Review on the Efficacy and Safety of Mahuang and Ephedrine in the Treatment of Obesity -Focused on RCT-. J Korean Med 2017;38(3):170–184.

37. Disse E, Ledoux S, Bétry C, Caussy C, Maitrepierre C, Coupaye M, et al. An artificial neural network to predict resting energy expenditure in obesity. Clin Nutr 2018;37(5):1661–1669.

Article information Continued

Fig. 1

Flowchart of dataset for analysis

Fig. 2

Data analytics lifecycle

Fig. 3

A schematic diagram of prediction analyses of weight loss.

The analysis for predicting weight loss was divided into three parts, and the weight loss at each time point refers to the change from the initial point of treatment to the point of weight report.

Fig. 4

Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves

Table 1A

Independent Variables Used in the First Analysis (n=25,988)

Variables
Age (years)		36.34 ± 10.5

Weight (kg)		72.69 ± 10.50

BMI (kg/m²)		27.60 ± 3.04

Patients with medication dose change (n, %)	Stable	21,590 (83.08)
Patients with medication dose change (n, %)	Increased	4,398 (16.92)

Gender (n, %)	Male	2,292 (8.82)
Gender (n, %)	Female	23,696 (91.18)

Dietary habits (n, %)*	Light eating	749 (2.88)
	Binge eating	10,817 (41.62)
	Nighttime eating	8,197 (31.54)

Weight loss experience (n, %)	None	6,575 (25.3)
	Diet, exercise only or weight loss drug for less than 3 months	10,247 (39.43)
	Weight loss drug over 3 months	9,166 (35.27)

Diseases (n, %)*	High blood pressure	1,790 (6.89)
	Anemia	1,922 (7.4)
	Diabetes	676 (2.6)
	Hypothyroidism	598 (2.3)
	Hyperthyroidism	293 (1.13)
	Gastritis	846 (3.26)
	Reflux esophagitis	490 (1.89)
	Hyperlipidemia	610 (2.35)
	Low back pain	794 (3.06)

multiple choices allowed

Data are expressed as n (%) for categorical variables and mean ± SD for continuous variables.

Table 1B

Independent Variables Used in the 2^nd Analysis (n=6,304)

	Variables		Added Variables in 2^nd Analysis

				Variables

Age (years)		37.09±10.25	Weight2 (kg)		69.81±10.01
Weight (kg)		72.51±10.36	BMI2 (kg/m²)		26.55±2.94
BMI (kg/m²)		27.58±3.02	Prescription Period1–2 (days)		25.72±5.19

Patients with medication dose change (n, %)	Stable	5217(82.76) (1^st)	Reduced BMI1–2 (kg/m²)		1.02±0.46
		→3,847(61.02) (2^nd)
	Increased	1087(17.24) (1^st)	Reduced Rate1–2 (%)		3.71±1.6
		→2,458(38.98) (2^nd)

Gender (n, %)	Male	527 (8.34)	Reduced Weight1–2 (kg)		2.7±1.25

	Female	5,777 (91.64)	Symptoms of discomfort 1–2 (n, %)*	Gastro-intestinal system	673 (10.68)

Dietary habits (n, %)*	Light eating	198 (3.14)		Central and peripheral nervous system	497 (7.88)
	Binge eating	2,593 (41.13)		Psychiatric Symptoms	204 (3.24)
	Nighttime eating	1,888 (29.95)		Autonomic nervous system	117 (1.86)

Weight loss experience (n, %)	None	1,656 (26.27)		Others	205 (3.25)

	Diet, exercise only or weight loss drug for less than 3 months	2,449 (38.85)	Satisfaction with weight loss 1–2 (n, %)	Good	3,143 (49.86)
	Weight loss drug over 3 months	2,199 (34.88)	Satisfaction with weight loss 1–2 (n, %)	Fair	2,296 (36.42)

Diseases (n, %)*	High blood pressure	487 (7.58)		Poor	865 (13.72)

	Anemia	445 (7.06)	Satiety and appetite suppression 1–2 (n, %)	Good	2,691 (42.69)
	Diabetes	160 (2.54)		Fair	1381 (21.91)
	Hypothyroidism	148 (2.35)		Poor	2232 (35.41)

	Hyperthyroidism	88 (1.4)	Attendance2 (n, %)		3,793 (60.17)
	Gastritis	141 (2.24)
	Reflux esophagitis	67 (1.06)
	Hyperlipidemia	162 (2.57)
	Low back pain	478 (3.16)

multiple choices allowed

Data are expressed as n (%) for categorical variables and mean ± SD for continuous variables.

Table 1C

Independent Variables Used in the 3^rd Analysis (n=833)

	Variables
Age (years)					38.19 ± 10.42
Weight (kg)					73.96 ± 10.26
BMI (kg/m²)					28.3 ± 3.14
Patients with medication dose change (n, %)	Stable		648(77.79) (1^st)→481(57.74) (2^nd)→324(38.90) (3^rd)
Patients with medication dose change (n, %)	Increased		185(22.21) (1^st)→352(42.26) (2^nd)→509(61.10) (3^rd)
Gender (n, %)	Male				51 (8.82)
Gender (n, %)	Female				782 (91.18)
Dietary habits (n, %)*	Light eating				23 (2.76)
	Binge eating				349 (41.9)
	Nighttime eating				242 (29.05)
Weight loss experience (n, %)	None				215 (25.81)
	Diet, exercise only or weight loss drug for less than 3 months				305 (36.61)
	Weight loss drug over 3 months				313 (37.58)
Diseases (n, %)*	High blood pressure				72 (8.64)
	Anemia				49 (5.88)
	Diabetes				26 (3.12)
	Hypothyroidism				30 (3.6)
	Hyperthyroidism				8 (0.96)
	Gastritis				18 (2.16)
	Reflux esophagitis				10 (1.2)
	Hyperlipidemia				27 (3.24)
	Low back pain				28 (3.36)

Added Variables in the 2nd Analysis			Added Variables in the 3rd Analysis

	Variables			Variables

Weight2 (kg)		71.21 ± 9.81	Weight3 (kg)		68.97 ± 9.51
BMI2 (kg/m²)		27.25 ± 3.02	BMI3 (kg/m²)		26.39 ± 2.94
Prescription Period1–2 (days)		25.49 ± 5.24	Prescription Period1–3 (days)		58.57 ± 8.17
			Prescription Period2–3 (days)		33.09 ± 6.53
Reduced BMI1–2 (kg/m²)		1.05 ± 0.46	Reduced BMI1–3 (kg/m²)		1.91 ± 0.71
			Reduced BMI2–3 (kg/m²)		0.86 ± 0.48
Reduced Rate1–2 (%)		3.70 ± 1.54	Reduced Rate1–3 (%)		6.71 ± 2.31
			Reduced Rate2–3 (%)		3.13 ± 1.74
Reduced Weight1–2 (kg)		2.75 ± 1.25	Reduced Weight1–3 (kg)		4.99 ± 1.93
			Reduced Weight2–3 (kg)		2.24 ± 1.28
Symptoms of discomfort 1–2 (n, %)*	Gastro-intestinal system	79 (9.48)	Symptoms of discomfort 2–3 (n, %)*	Gastro-intestinal system	72 (8.64)
	Central and peripheral nervous system	80 (9.6)		Central and peripheral nervous system	38 (4.56)
	Psychiatric Symptoms	27 (3.24)		Psychiatric Symptoms	24 (2.88)
	Autonomic nervous system	14 (1.68)		Autonomic nervous system	14 (1.68)
	Others	42 (5.04)		Others	29 (3.48)
Satisfaction with weight loss 1–2 (n, %)	Good	463 (55.58)	Satisfaction with weight loss 2–3 (n, %)	Good	472 (56.66)
	Fair	284 (34.09)		Fair	264 (31.69)
	Poor	86 (10.32)		Poor	97 (11.64)
Satiety and appetite suppression 1–2 (n, %)	Good	377 (45.26)	Satiety and appetite suppression 2–3 (n, %)	Good	343 (41.18)
	Fair	186 (22.33)		Fair	181 (21.73)
	Poor	270 (32.41)		Poor	309 (37.09)
Attendance2 (n, %)		586 (70.35)	Attendance3 (n, %)		616 (73.95)

multiple choices allowed

Data are expressed as n (%) for categorical variables and mean ± SD for continuous variables.

Table 2

Model Performance for Quartile Classification Bench Mark

Reduced Rate						Reduced Weight

1^st Bench mark		DT1	RF1	LR1	ANN1	1^st Bench mark		DT1	RF1	LR1	ANN1
Upper 25%	4.87%	74.91%	74.91%	74.91%	74.78%	Upper 25%	3.54kg	75.68%	75.70%	75.70%	76.12%
50%	3.75%	53.41%	54.73%	54.26%	55.01%	50%	2.68kg	59.47%	60.18%	59.05%	60.02%
Lower 25%	2.66%	74.80%	74.80%	74.70%	75.08%	Lower 25%	1.90kg	75.27%	75.27%	75.29%	75.41%

2^nd Bench mark		DT2	RF2	LR2	ANN2	2^nd Bench mark		DT2	RF2	LR2	ANN2

Upper 25%	8.21%	78.81%	80.50%	80.39%	80.17%	Upper 25%	5.94kg	82.51%	82.51%	81.13%	82.46%
50%	6.53%	71.04%	71.51%	71.67%	73.59%	50%	4.64kg	72.15%	73.36%	73.89%	75.79%
Lower 25%	4.87%	79.81%	79.39%	80.39%	80.96%	Lower 25%	3.44kg	80.13%	80.34%	80.13%	81.22%

3^rd Bench mark		DT3	RF3	LR3	ANN3	3^rd Bench mark		DT3	RF3	LR3	ANN3

Upper 25%	10.66%	86.00%	90.00%	86.80%	86.31%	Upper 25%	8.02kg	89.20%	90.00%	88.00%	87.51%
50%	8.68%	80.00%	83.20%	84.80%	83.91%	50%	6.22kg	86.00%	85.20%	84.40%	85.23%
Lower 25%	6.68%	84.00%	84.40%	85.60%	86.67%	Lower 25%	4.72kg	87.60%	86.00%	86.40%	86.55%

DT: Decision Tree; RF: Random Forest; LR: Logistic Regression; ANN: Artificial Neural Network

Reduced rate of 1st Bench mark = (initial weight – weight at 2nd prescription)/ initial weight *100

Reduced rate of 2nd Bench mark = (initial weight – weight at 3rd prescription)/ initial weight *100

Reduced rate of 3rd Bench mark = (initial weight – weight at last weight report)/ initial weight *100

Table 3

Features of First and Fourth Quartile based on First Prediction Analysis

	Reduced Rate		Reduced Weight

	More Than Upper 25% (n=6,554)	Less Than Lower 25% (n=6,527)	More Than Upper 25% (n=6,499)	Less Than Lower 25% (n=6,507)
Age (years)	34.92 ± 9.58	37.52 ± 10.59	34.59 ± 9.37	37.84 ± 10.67
Gender (n, %)	Female 5,930 (90)	Female 5,918 (91)	Female 5,400 (83)	Female 6,118 (94)
	Male 624 (10)	Male 609 (9)	Male 1,099 (17)	Male 389 (6)
Height (cm)	162.28 ± 6.67	161.95 ± 6.71	164.22 ± 7.32	160.94 ± 6.26
Weight (kg)	72.76 ± 10.78	72.74 ± 10.5	77.68 ± 12.01	70.06 ± 9.26
BMI (kg/m²)	27.56 ± 3.01	27.68 ± 3.07	28.71 ± 3.23	27.01 ± 2.81
Diet 1 (n, %)	1,908 (29)	1,426 (22)	1,902 (29)	1,393 (21)
Diet 2 (n, %)	2,689 (41)	2,436 (37)	2,593 (40)	2,482 (38)
Diet 3 (n, %)	1,957 (30)	2,665 (41)	2,004 (31)	2,632 (40)
RR (%)	5.89 ± 0.82	1.67 ± 0.79	5.76 ± 0.98	1.71 ± 0.84
RW (kg)	4.29 ± 0.87	1.22 ± 0.61	4.42 ± 0.77	1.18 ± 0.56

Data are expressed as n (%) for categorical variables and mean ± SD for continuous variables.

Diet 1: Weight Loss Experience_None; Diet 2: Diet, exercise only or weight loss drug for less than 3 months; Diet 3: Weight Loss Experience_Weight Loss Drug over 3 Months; RR: Reduced Rate; RW: Reduced Weight

Table 4

Model Performance according to Variables Ranking Based on Feature Importance

	Reduced Rate in 1^st Analysis					Reduced Weight in 1^st Analysis

Ranking	Variables	DT (%)	RF (%)	LR (%)	ANN (%)	Variables	DT (%)	RF (%)	LR (%)	ANN (%)
7						Diet 1	52.19	52.19	52.19	52.44
6						MD_S	54.51	54.51	54.51	54.71
5						Diet 3	54.51	54.51	54.51	54.71
4						Gender	55.07	55.07	55.07	55.22
3	Diet3	52.39	52.39	52.39	53.44	Age	55.91	55.61	55.46	56.48
2	Weight	52.53	52.64	52.39	53.44	BMI	58.61	59.20	58.56	58.90
1	Age	54.06	54.05	53.79	54.69	Weight	58.78	60.06	59.05	59.95

	Reduced Rate in 2^nd Analysis					Reduced Weight in 2^nd Analysis

Ranking	Variables	DT (%)	RF (%)	LR (%)	ANN (%)	Variables	DT (%)	RF (%)	LR (%)	ANN (%)

8						Gender	54.65	54.65	54.65	53.44
7						SAS 1–2_G	57.14	57.14	57.14	57.63
6	SAS1–2 G	54.44	54.44	54.44	55.50	MD_S	57.77	57.77	57.77	58.60
5	SWL1–2 B	56.40	56.40	56.40	56.76	SWL1–2_B	59.73	59.73	59.83	60.01
4	Weight	57.24	56.50	56.50	57.12	Age	58.56	58.67	60.15	61.02
3	Age	55.97	57.03	57.40	59.18	SWL1–2_G	61.31	62.21	62.58	63.52
2	SWL1–2_G	60.94	61.52	62.42	62.21	Weight	64.16	64.64	64.11	66.23
1	RR 1–2	72.04	71.83	70.51	73.52	RR 1–2	73.41	73.15	72.20	75.33

	Reduced Rate in 3^rd Analysis					Reduced Weight in 3^rd Analysis

Ranking	Variables	DT (%)	RF (%)	LR (%)	ANN (%)	Variables	DT (%)	RF (%)	LR (%)	ANN (%)

4	Age	54.80	52.80	53.60	58.95	Age	59.20	59.20	58.00	61.95
3	Weight3	52.80	56.80	50.40	57.63	Weight	59.20	64.80	60.80	67.71
2	RR 1–2	70.80	73.60	69.20	71.55	RW 2–3	71.60	76.80	72.00	76.11
1	RR 1–3	80.00	81.20	81.60	81.88	RW 1–3	86.00	86.00	82.00	83.67

DT: Decision Tree; RF: Random Forest; LR: Logistic Regression; ANN: Artificial Neural Network; Diet 3: Weight Loss Experience_Weight Loss Drug over 3 Months; MD_S: Patients with Medication Dose Change_Stable; Diet 1: Weight Loss Experience_None; SAS 1–2_G: Satiety and Appetite Suppression 1–2_Good; SWL1–2_B: Satisfaction with Weight Loss 1–2_Bad; SWL1–2_G: Satisfaction with Weight Loss 1–2_Good; RR: Reduced Rate; RW: Reduced Weight

Table 5

Prediction Model Performance Results based on AUC

		Algorithm	Sensitivity	Specificity	AUC
1^st Analysis	Reduced Rate	DT	0.557	0.524	0.551
		RF	0.591	0.489	0.557
		LR	0.576	0.499	0.546
		ANN	0.574	0.497	0.550

	Reduced weight	DT	0.709	0.465	0.630
		RF	0.609	0.591	0.640
		LR	0.582	0.602	0.631
		ANN	0.426	0.748	0.620

2^nd Analysis	Reduced Rate	DT	0.722	0.719	0.791
		RF	0.748	0.690	0.789
		LR	0.734	0.677	0.785
		ANN	0.805	0.606	0.785

	Reduced weight	DT	0.784	0.687	0.802
		RF	0.764	0.700	0.816
		LR	0.761	0.685	0.801
		ANN	0.880	0.557	0.798

3^rd Analysis	Reduced Rate	DT	0.762	0.836	0.890
		RF	0.787	0.836	0.890
		LR	0.852	0.781	0.897
		ANN	0.828	0.789	0.880

	Reduced weight	DT	0.873	0.848	0.937
		RF	0.873	0.848	0.939
		LR	0.847	0.795	0.905
		ANN	0.788	0.856	0.920

DT: Decision Tree; RF: Random Forest; LR: Logistic Regression; ANN: Artificial Neural Network; AUC: Area Under the Curve (0.90 – 1.00: excellent, 0.80 – 0.90: good, 0.70 – 0.80: fair, 0.60 – 0.70: poor, 0.50 – 0.60: fail)