ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Sex-specific machine learning models for cardiovascular disease risk prediction in adults aged ≥ 80 years: insights from the Chinese longitudinal healthy longevity survey.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of mortality among older adults, yet existing risk prediction tools lack validation for individuals aged ≥ 80 years. This study aims to develop and validate gender-specific machine learning models for CVD risk prediction in adults aged ≥ 80 years using routine biomarkers, and to identify key predictors through interpretable artificial intelligence approaches.
methodsThis prognostic study analyzed two independent longitudinal datasets (2012-2014 and 2014-2018) from the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey including 1,954 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 80 years (715 males, 1,239 females) without CVD at baseline. The outcome was incident CVD within 4 years. Five machine learning algorithms (i.e., logistic regression decision tree, support vector machine, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost)) were compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), recall, specificity, precision, and F1-score. Model interpretability was assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations values.
resultsThe XGBoost model demonstrated superior performance for both males (AUC [95% confidence interval], 0.751 [0.635-0.855]; recall, 759 [0.593-0.909]; F1-score, 0.506 [0.369-0.628]) and females (AUC, 0.748 [0.671-0.819]; recall, 0.891 [0.791-0.976]; F1-score, 0.463 [0.369-0.551]). Shared top predictors included vitamin D3, glycated albumin, platelet count, and vitamin B12. Risk stratification based on model predictions effectively identified high-risk individuals, with hazard ratios of 7.46 (95% CI, 2.81-19.78) for males and 5.18 (95% CI, 2.27-11.82) for females in the highest risk group compared to the lowest risk group.
conclusionsThis study developed interpretable, gender-specific machine learning models for CVD risk prediction in the oldest old population using routine biomarkers. The models demonstrated good discrimination and calibration, offering a practical tool for identifying high-risk individuals who may benefit from targeted preventive interventions. These findings suggest the potential utility of biomarker-based machine learning approaches in cardiovascular risk assessment for the rapidly growing elderly population.
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.