ArticleComputer methods and programs in biomedicine update2023
Evaluation of available risk scores to predict multiple cardiovascular complications for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using electronic health records.
Article in Computer methods and programs in biomedicine update, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Timeline of the Association Between Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Precision prognostics for cardiovascular disease in Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- Hypergraph Transformers for EHR-based Clinical Predictions.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: Various cardiovascular risk prediction models have been developed for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Yet few models have been validated externally. We perform a comprehensive validation of existing risk models on a heterogeneous population of patients with type 2 diabetes using secondary analysis of electronic health record data. Methods: Electronic health records of 47,988 patients with type 2 diabetes between 2013 and 2017 were used to validate 16 cardiovascular risk models, including 5 that had not been compared previously, to estimate the 1-year risk of various cardiovascular outcomes. Discrimination and calibration were assessed by the c-statistic and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic, respectively. Each model was also evaluated based on the missing measurement rate. Sub-analysis was performed to determine the impact of race on discrimination performance. Results: There was limited discrimination (c-statistics ranged from 0.51 to 0.67) across the cardiovascular risk models. Discrimination generally improved when the model was tailored towards the individual outcome. After recalibration of the models, the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic yielded p-values above 0.05. However, several of the models with the best discrimination relied on measurements that were often imputed (up to 39% missing). Conclusion: No single prediction model achieved the best performance on a full range of cardiovascular endpoints. Moreover, several of the highest-scoring models relied on variables with high missingness frequencies such as HbA1c and cholesterol that necessitated data imputation and may not be as useful in practice. An open-source version of our developed Python package, cvdm, is available for comparisons using other data sources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.