ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Development of an interpretable machine learning model for early prediction of aortic stiffness risk in health examination populations.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) is the gold standard for assessing aortic stiffness, but its complexity, time consumption, and privacy concerns limit its application in routine health examinations. This study aimed to develop an interpretable machine learning model based on readily accessible indicators, providing an alternative screening tool for institutions unable to perform cfPWV measurements. Methods: A total of 261 participants were enrolled as the development cohort and randomly divided into training and testing sets (7:3 ratio), with 101 additional participants as an independent external validation set. Aortic stiffness was defined as cfPWV ≥10 m/s. Features were selected by combining univariate logistic regression, recursive feature elimination with random forest (RFE-RF), and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) methods. Six machine learning models were constructed: logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), support vector machine (SVM), Naive Bayes (NB), and K-nearest neighbours (KNN). Internal validation was performed using 5-fold cross-validation, and performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The optimal model was validated on the external set, and interpretability was analyzed using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Subsequently, the model was deployed as an interactive, web-based application utilizing the Streamlit framework in Python. Results: Seven key variables were selected: Age, body mass index (BMI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), fasting blood glucose (FBG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST). The XGBoost model achieved the best performance with an AUC of 0.903 (95% CI: 0.830-0.975) on the testing set and a mean AUC of 0.979 (95% CI: 0.960-0.997) in 5-fold cross-validation on the training set. External validation demonstrated robust generalizability (AUC = 1.000). DCA indicated a favourable clinical net benefit, and SHAP analysis quantified feature contributions. Conclusion: This study developed a high-performance XGBoost model based on routine health examination indicators and further implemented an accessible web-based calculator to support clinical decision-making in settings without direct access to cfPWV measurement. The calculator is available at: https://lgezijo5wyivqrnt2zrkcm.streamlit.app/.
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.