ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Development and validation of a prediction model of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. 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: Left ventricular longitudinal myocardial systolic dysfunction (LVSD) represents a critical risk factor for diabetes-related cardiovascular events. This study aimed to develop a well-calibrated and convenient risk prediction model to investigate early predictive risk of LVSD in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and to evaluate its performance. Methods: A total of 310 patients with T2DM from June 2020 to October 2021 at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to a training set (n=217) and a validation set (n=93) at a 7:3 ratio. Basic characteristics, laboratory tests, echocardiographic parameters, two-dimensional global longitudinal strain (GLS) parameters, and medication use were collected. LVSD in patients with T2DM with preserved LVEF was defined as an absolute value of GLS <18%. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was applied to optimize the screening variables, followed by multivariate logistic regression to identify independent risk factors for predicting LVSD, and a nomogram was established. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, area under the curve (AUC) values, calibration plot, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to verify and evaluate the nomogram's discrimination, calibration, and clinical validity. Results: A total of 8 independent risk predictors of LVSD in T2DM were extracted and incorporated into the nomogram, as evaluated using LASSO regression analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis, including body mass index (BMI), T2DM duration, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), left ventricular (LV) mass index, E/e', diabetic retinopathy, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and diabetic nephropathy. The nomogram indicated excellent prediction properties with AUC values of 0.922 and 0.918 for the training set and validation set, respectively. Further, the predictive nomogram demonstrated outstanding consistency between the predicted probability and the actual probability in terms of the calibration plots. DCA showed also that the predicted nomogram was clinically beneficial. Conclusions: This study identified independent risk factors for LVSD in patients with T2DM and developed a predictive nomogram. It allows for clinical decision-making to timely intervene or delay the occurrence of LVSD.
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.