Evidence mapPaperPMID 36658644Full record

SynthesisCardiovascular diabetology2023

Cardiovascular complications in a diabetes prediction model using machine learning: a systematic review.

Ooi Ting Kee, Harmiza Harun, Norlaila Mustafa, Nor Azian Abdul Murad, Siok Fong Chin, Rosmina Jaafar, Noraidatulakma Abdullah

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
13.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ooi Ting KeeUKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Harmiza HarunUKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Norlaila MustafaDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Nor Azian Abdul MuradUKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Siok Fong ChinUKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Rosmina JaafarFaculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Malaysia.
Noraidatulakma AbdullahUKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute (UMBI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. noraidatulakma.abdullah@ppukm.ukm.edu.my.
University Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre · MYNational University of Malaysia · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prediction model has been the focus of studies since the last century in the diagnosis and prognosis of various diseases. With the advancement in computational technology, machine learning (ML) has become the widely used tool to develop a prediction model. This review is to investigate the current development of prediction model for the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients using machine learning. A systematic search on Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) was conducted to look for relevant articles based on the research question. The risk of bias (ROB) for all articles were assessed based on the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) statement. Neural network with 76.6% precision, 88.06% sensitivity, and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91 was found to be the most reliable algorithm in developing prediction model for cardiovascular disease among type 2 diabetes patients. The overall concern of applicability of all included studies is low. While two out of 10 studies were shown to have high ROB, another studies ROB are unknown due to the lack of information. The adherence to reporting standards was conducted based on the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) standard where the overall score is 53.75%. It is highly recommended that future model development should adhere to the PROBAST and TRIPOD assessment to reduce the risk of bias and ensure its applicability in clinical settings. Potential lipid peroxidation marker is also recommended in future cardiovascular disease prediction model to improve overall model applicability.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansMachine LearningPrognosisCardiovascular diseaseMachine learningPrediction modelType 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID36658644
PMCPMC9854013
OpenAlexW4317438932

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.