ArticleCardiovascular diabetology2025
Development and validation of prediction models for stroke and myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes based on health insurance claims: does machine learning outperform traditional regression approaches?
Article in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- XGBoost based machine learning prediction model for major adverse cardiovascular events after PCI in STEMI patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A novel interpretable machine learning framework for predicting postpartum depression: a SHAP-based analysis of maternal and infant health indicators.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Dynamic TyG trajectories cumulative TyG burden are associated with in-hospital mortality in acute brain injury: a multicenter interpretable machine-learning analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Approach on Predictive Model Establishment for In-Hospital Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Solutions for Databases With Dimensionality Reduction and Class Imbalance.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Enhancing one-year mortality prediction in STEMI patients post-PCI: an interpretable machine learning model with risk stratification.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Frailty prediction in patients with chronic digestive system diseases: based on multi-task learning model.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigitalization and big health system data open new avenues for targeted prevention and treatment strategies. We aimed to develop and validate prediction models for stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with type 2 diabetes based on routinely collected high-dimensional health insurance claims and compared predictive performance of traditional regression with state-of-the-art machine learning including deep learning methods.
methodsWe used German health insurance claims from 2014 to 2019 with 287 potentially relevant literature-derived variables to predict 3-year risk of MI and stroke. Following a train-test split approach, we compared the performance of logistic methods with and without forward selection, LASSO-regularization, random forests (RF), gradient boosting (GB), multi-layer-perceptrons (MLP) and feature-tokenizer transformers (FTT). We assessed discrimination (Areas Under the Precision-Recall and Receiver-Operator Curves, AUPRC and AUROC) and calibration.
resultsAmong n = 371,006 patients with type 2 diabetes (mean age: 67.2 years), 3.5% (n = 13,030) had MIs and 3.4% (n = 12,701) strokes. AUPRCs were 0.035 (MI) and 0.034 (stroke) for a null model, between 0.082 (MLP) and 0.092 (GB) for MI, and between 0.061 (MLP) and 0.073 (GB) for stoke. AUROCs were 0.5 for null models, between 0.70 (RF, MLP, FTT) and 0.71 (all other models) for MI, and between 0.66 (MLP) and 0.69 (GB) for stroke. All models were well calibrated.
conclusionsDiscrimination performance of claims-based models reached a ceiling at around 0.09 AUPRC and 0.7 AUROC. While for AUROC this performance was comparable to existing epidemiological models incorporating clinical information, comparison of other, potentially more relevant metrics, such as AUPRC, sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value was hampered by lack of reporting in the literature. The fact that machine learning including deep learning methods did not outperform more traditional approaches may suggest that feature richness and complexity were exploited before the choice of algorithm could become critical to maximize performance. Future research might focus on the impact of different feature derivation approaches on performance ceilings. In the absence of other more powerful screening alternatives, applying transparent regression-based models in routine claims, though certainly imperfect, remains a promising scalable low-cost approach for population-based cardiovascular risk prediction and stratification.
Indexed as
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.