ArticleArchives of endocrinology and metabolism2025
Comparative machine learning models for hypertension prediction in a cohort of patients with diabetes using routine clinical variables.
Article in Archives of endocrinology and metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and to compare machine learning models for predicting hypertension in patients with diabetes using routine clinical variables.
methodsUsing Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data, models were trained on 35,346 individuals with seven variables ("HighChol", "BMI", "Smoker", "PhysActivity", "Sex", and "Age") to predict the occurrence of hypertension in patients with diabetes ("HTNinDM"). Models included neural network, gradient boosting, random forest, Adaptive Boosting, and logistic regression. Performance was assessed by area under the curve, accuracy, precision, and recall, and F1 score using cross-validation. Class imbalance was addressed via diverse models. Feature importance was evaluated by permutation importance of a random forest model.
resultsThe neural network model achieved the best performance with area under the curve 0.689, accuracy 76.5%, precision 76.3%, recall 98.8%. Gradient boosting models performed similarly. Age and body mass index were the top predictors.
conclusionMachine learning models show potential for identifying patients with diabetes at high hypertension risk using routine clinical data. A neural network model achieved excellent predictive performance.
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.