Evidence mapPaperPMID 40965312Full record

SynthesisEndocrinology, diabetes & metabolism2025

Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Heart Failure in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Pooya Eini, Peyman Eini, Homa Serpoush, Mohammad Rezayee

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
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

4 authors.

Pooya EiniCardiovascular Research Center, Rajaie Cardiovascular Institute, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9457-8588
Peyman EiniInfectious Disease Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Homa SerpoushHamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Mohammad RezayeeCollege of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeart failure is a significant complication in diabetic patients, and machine learning algorithms offer potential for early prediction. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic performance of ML models in predicting HF among diabetic patients.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, and Scopus, identifying 2830 articles. After deduplication and screening, 16 studies were included, with 7 providing data for meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed using PROBAST+AI. A bivariate random-effects model (Stata, midas, metadta) pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for best-performing algorithms, with subgroup analyses. Heterogeneity (I

resultsThis meta-analysis of seven studies evaluating machine learning models for heart failure detection demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI: 0.75-0.90), specificity of 86% (95% CI: 0.56-0.97), and an area under the ROC curve of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93). The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 6.6 (95% CI: 1.2-35.9), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.08-0.36), with a diagnostic odds ratio of 39 (95% CI: 4-423). Significant heterogeneity was observed, primarily related to differences in study populations, machine learning algorithms, dataset sizes, and validation methods. No significant publication bias was detected.

conclusionMachine learning models demonstrate promising diagnostic accuracy for heart failure detection and have the potential to support early diagnosis and risk assessment in clinical practice. However, considerable heterogeneity across studies and limited external validation highlight the need for standardised development, prospective validation, and improved interpretability of ML models to ensure their effective integration into healthcare systems.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHeart FailureMachine LearningHumansPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and Specificitydiabetesdiagnostic accuracyheart failuremachine learningpredictive modelling

Identifiers

PMID40965312
PMCPMC12445121

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.