SynthesisEndocrinology, diabetes & metabolism2025
Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Heart Failure in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Analysis of Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque on Intravascular Ultrasound: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- "Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Evaluating Tricuspid Regurgitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis".Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Applications of machine learning algorithms to detect digital addiction: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Machine learning and Regression-Based models for prediction of postoperative atrial fibrillation following coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Review
- Accuracy of machine learning models for mitral regurgitation severity assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Review
- Efficacy and comparative performance of machine learning models for stroke risk prediction in hypertensive patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.