ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Machine learning-based prediction of prolonged length of stay in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) frequently experience prolonged length of stay (PLOS). This condition increases healthcare burden and worsens prognosis. However, no predictive model specifically addresses PLOS in this high-risk multimorbid population. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included hospitalized older T2DM-CVD patients. PLOS was defined as hospital stay exceeding the 75th percentile of the training set population. Potential predictors were selected via LASSO regression. Eight machine learning (ML) models were developed to predict PLOS risk. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis. SHAP analysis was employed for model interpretability. Results: A total of 27,629 patients were included. The XGBoost model achieved the highest training AUC (0.819) and demonstrated competitive predictive performance in both the internal (AUC = 0.753) and time-based external (AUC = 0.728) validation sets. However, its performance advantage over simpler models such as logistic regression was modest in validation, and XGBoost showed some degree of overfitting (AUC drop of 0.066 from training to validation). Although logistic regression showed comparable validation performance with less overfitting, XGBoost was selected as the final model for its ability to capture complex nonlinear interactions and provide SHAP-based interpretability, with the understanding that further external validation is needed. Key predictors included cerebral infarction, white blood cell count, anemia, pulse rate, the glycated hemoglobin to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (GHR), and osteoporosis. Most continuous variables showed nonlinear associations with PLOS risk. Conclusions: The XGBoost-based model effectively predicts PLOS risk in older T2DM-CVD patients. This tool shows promise for early identification of high-risk individuals and optimization of medical resource allocation within our institutional setting. However, further prospective and multi-center validation studies are required before clinical adoption.
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.