ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Machine learning to identify heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is commonly observed in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients. Despite its growing prevalence, HFpEF is frequently underdiagnosed. The aim of our study is to apply machine learning algorithms for identifying HFpEF in patients with T2DM. Methods: A total of 1,444 patients with T2DM who met the criteria were consecutively enrolled. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) technique was applied for feature selection to identify key clinical variables. All patients were randomly divided into a training set and a test set at a ratio of 7:3. Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), random forest, K-nearest neighbors, support vector machine (SVM), light gradient boosting machine, decision tree and logistic regression were used to establish diagnostic models. The diagnostic performance of models was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), precision, accuracy, F1 score, and Brier score. Calibration curve and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to assess the accuracy and clinical validity of the model. Results: Patients were divided into HFpEF group and non-HFpEF group. XGBoost model (precision 0.812, accuracy 0.770, sensitivity 0.719, AUC 0.852, F1 score 0.741, Brier score 0.148) and SVM model (precision 0.784, accuracy 0.765, sensitivity 0.681, AUC 0.857, F1 score 0.745, Brier score 0.166) had the highest diagnostic performance. However, the calibration curve of the SVM model depart from the line of perfect calibration which confirmed poor calibration. Therefore, XGBoost was demonstrated to be best ML model in identifying HFpEF in patients with T2DM. Rankings of variable importance based on the Gain metric showed that B-type natriuretic peptide over 100 pg/mL had the highest importance score, followed by albumin, E/e', age and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Conclusions: This study found XGBoost to be the optimal machine learning algorithm in identifying HFpEF in T2DM patients. Additionally, the model demonstrated substantial clinical utility, as assessed by DCA.
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.