Machine learning algorithms to predict major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes
Abstract
Background Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) are common complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) that include myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure (HF). The objective of the current study was to predict MACE among T2DM patients. Methods Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients above 18 years old were recruited for the study from the All of Us Research Program. Eligible participants were those who took sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Different Machine learning algorithms: including RandomForest (RF), XGBoost, logistic regression (LR), and weighted ensemble model (WEM) were employed. Clinical attributes, electrolytes and biomarkers were explored in predicting MACE. The feature importance was determined using mean decrease accuracy. Results Overall, 9, 059 subjects were included in the analyses, of which 5197 (57.4%) were females. The XGBoost Model demonstrated a prediction accuracy of 0.80 [0.78-0.82], which is higher as compared to the RF 0.78[0.76-0.80], the LR model 0.65 [0.62-0.67], and the WEM 0.75 [0.73-0.76], respectively. The classification accuracy of the models for stroke was more than 95%, which was higher than prediction accuracy for MI (∼85%), and HF (∼80%). Phosphate, blood urea nitrogen and troponin levels were the major predictors of MACE. Conclusion The ML models had shown acceptable performance in predicting MACE in T2DM patients, except the LR model. Phosphate, blood urea nitrogen, and other electrolytes were important pr…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A study involving 9059 participants developed an XGBoost model for MACE prediction in T2D, attaining an AUC of 0.82 and identifying phosphate and blood urea nitrogen as novel predictors.
“A study involving 9059 participants developed an XGBoost model for MACE prediction in T2D, attaining an AUC of 0.82 and identifying phosphate and blood urea nitrogen as novel predictors [90].”
From Artificial intelligence-powered prediction of diabetic complications: from clinical data to molecular omics (2026) · cites this paper as [90]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 34
- Authors
- Abegaz, T. M., Baljoon, A., Kilanko, O., Sherbeny, F., & Ali, A. A.
- Affiliations
- Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ali, Askal Ayalew
- Venue
- Computers in Biology and Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-09
- Volume
- 164
- Pages
- 107289
- ISSN
- 0010-4825 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4385444799
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 7
- FWCI
- 7.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computers in Biology and Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
- National Institutes of Health (1 OT2 OD025276, 1 OT2 OD025277, 1 OT2 OD026555, 1 U24 OD023121, 1 U24 OD023163, 3 OT2 OD023205, 3 OT2 OD023206, AOD 16037, HHSN 263201600085U, U24 OD023176)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Keywords
- major adverse cardiovascular events, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular risk prediction, SGLT2 inhibitors, XGBoost, random forest, weighted ensemble, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, phosphate, blood urea nitrogen, troponin, electrolytes, biomarkers, prognostic factors
- MeSH terms
- Population Health, Adolescent, Cardiovascular Diseases, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Myocardial Infarction, Risk Factors, Stroke
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review