Back

Explainable Machine Learning Framework for Predicting Cardiometabolic Risk Using Meal Timing and Eating Habits

Datta, P. R.; Roy, K.

2026-02-07 health informatics
10.64898/2026.02.06.26345732 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundEating timing and regularity represent new contributors to metabolic health, however, the time-based aspect of eating behavior is rarely incorporated into traditional cardiometabolic risk assessment strategies. ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to create an explainable machine learning (ML) model to predict cardiometabolic risk based on anthropometric, dietary and chrono-nutritional data. MethodologyThis cross-sectional study included 300 adults for whom demographic, waist-hip ratio (WHR), Body Mass Index (BMI), blood pressure, eating timing (earliest time, latest time, meal frequency) and eating behavior observations were recorded. Nested 10-fold cross-validation and hyperparameter tuning were used to create three models (Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), XGBoost) with interpretability established through Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). Discrimination was evaluated with AUC-ROC, accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score and Brier score. ResultsXGBoost was the best model compared to RF (AUC = 0.94) and LR (AUC = 0.92) (AUC-ROC = 0.98, accuracy = 93%). Later dinner timing (OR = 2.5), irregular meal timing (OR = 1.6), and reduced adherence to the recommended meal frequency (OR = 1.8) were the top independent predictors of cardiometabolic danger; conversely In contrast, an increased frequency of meals and an awareness of the significance of meal timing positively impacted cardiometabolic danger. SHAP further interpreted XGBoost to conclude that BMI and WHR were the most significant predictors in addition to meal regularity. ConclusionExplainable ML modeling from mealtimes and nutritional behaviors provide accurate and interpretable prediction of threat. Improved awareness of meal timing serves as a modifiable behavioral intervention in preventative cardiometabolic efforts.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.