ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024
Predicting control of cardiovascular disease risk factors in South Asia using machine learning.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A substantial share of patients at risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) fail to achieve control of CVD risk factors, but clinicians lack a structured approach to identify these patients. We applied machine learning to longitudinal data from two completed randomized controlled trials among 1502 individuals with diabetes in urban India and Pakistan. Using commonly available clinical data, we predict each individual's risk of failing to achieve CVD risk factor control goals or meaningful improvements in risk factors at one year after baseline. When classifying those in the top quartile of predicted risk scores as at risk of failing to achieve goals or meaningful improvements, the precision for not achieving goals was 73% for HbA1c, 30% for SBP, and 24% for LDL, and for not achieving meaningful improvements 88% for HbA1c, 87% for SBP, and 85% for LDL. Such models could be integrated into routine care and enable efficient and targeted delivery of health resources in resource-constrained settings.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.