ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Machine-learning prediction of impaired outcome in diabetic patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
Article in Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery are vulnerable to postoperative cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications, yet risk stratification tools tailored to this population remain limited. This study aimed to develop interpretable machine-learning models for predicting impaired outcome in diabetic patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using an the INSPiRE analytic dataset is institutionally governed, de-identified, and not publicly available and included 4,293 diabetic patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Patients were classified into a control group ( Results: Patients with impaired outcome were older, had lower body weight, higher ASA class, heavier cardiovascular comorbidity burden, and greater intraoperative hypotension exposure. Among the five models, AdaBoost showed the best discrimination with an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.86), specificity of 0.76, sensitivity of 0.72, and PPV of 0.69. LightGBM, XGBoost, and CatBoost also outperformed the sparse penalized baseline. Boruta and SHAP consistently highlighted prior ischemic stroke, prior myocardial infarction, preoperative creatinine, albumin, inflammatory markers, age, ASA class, heart-rate and systolic blood-pressure summaries, and BUN as major contributors to risk. Conclusion: Interpretable ensemble learning provided modest internal improvement in perioperative risk stratification in diabetic patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Impaired outcome appeared to be driven by the combined burden of established vascular disease, reduced renal and nutritional reserve, inflammatory activation, and intraoperative hemodynamic instability. Further calibration testing, external validation, and fully reproducible pipeline reporting are needed before clinical deployment.
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.