ArticlePLOS digital health2026
A digital marker for stratifying cardiovascular metabolic comorbidities among the middle-aged and elderly adults.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular Metabolic Comorbidities (CMM) share common physiological mechanisms in inflammation and immunity, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance, leading to mutual disease interactions and complex clinical manifestations. To address challenges in describing CMM status based solely on clinical features, this paper proposes a digital marker to characterize the differences from single to multiple diseases, systematically revealing distinct CMM subgroups based on cross-sectional data. This paper constructed a directed acyclic network for CMM using demographic characteristics, clinical laboratory parameters, and disease status as nodes via the DirectLiNGAM algorithm. Network features were described using in degree, out degree, degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and closeness centrality, ranking node importance. The top seven significant clinical laboratory parameters were selected based on this ranking. Subsequently, the performance of ten machine learning algorithms (Random Forest, XGBoost, MLP, KNN, Gradient Boosting, SVC, Linear Regression, Ridge, ElasticNet, Lasso) in generating digital markers by predicting death was evaluated to determine the optimal algorithm. The generated digital markers were then binned to classify CMM into Low, Middle, and High groups. Finally, linear regression validated the rationality of the network filtered clinical laboratory parameters. In the CMM network, the top three disease nodes by in degree are DM, MemD, and DL, while the top five by out degree are TC, HBALC, GLU, HCT, and HGB. Regarding network centrality, the top five nodes by degree centrality are Male, TG, DM, CYC, and DL; by betweenness centrality, Male, Stroke, TG, DL,and DM; and by closeness centrality, Male, DM, Married, Stroke, and CA. Network analysis identified top clinical laboratory parameters as GLU, HBALC, TC, UA, HCT, TG, HGB, WBC, and CYC, consistent with statistically significant parameters (P < 0.05) in linear regression validation. Among machine learning algorithms, Ridge regression performed best in AUC, PR‑AUC, Brier Score, and Log Loss. The digital marker generated by Ridge regression yielded average scores of 0.016(0.008), 0.058(0.019), 0.296(0.197) for Low, Middle, and High groups, respectively. This paper developed a digital marker by integrating network analysis and machine learning to delineate CMM's cross‑sectional subgroups, indicating its potential for early detection and enabling future research on stratified interventions for high risk groups.
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.