ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Diagnostic value of systemic immune-inflammation composite index combined with triglyceride-glucose index in type 2 diabetes patients with coronary heart disease: a retrospective diagnostic model study.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
backgroundThe prevalence of coronary heart disease (CHD) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has increased substantially. Early identification of high-risk individuals is critical for improving clinical outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of the systemic immune-inflammation composite index (SIICI) and the triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index for CHD in patients with T2DM, and to develop and validate a combined diagnostic model incorporating these indices.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 599 patients with T2DM who underwent coronary angiography and divided them into CHD (n = 371) and non-CHD (n = 228) groups based on angiographic findings. Using stratified 7:3 sampling according to CHD status, the cohort was randomly split into training (n = 439) and validation (n = 160) sets. Clinical and laboratory data were collected. Univariate logistic regression (P < 0.1) followed by backward stepwise multivariate logistic regression was performed to construct the diagnostic model. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA).
resultsCompared with the non-CHD group, patients with CHD had significantly higher median levels of SIICI [5.24 (3.54, 8.05) vs. 3.75 (2.63, 4.76), P < 0.001] and TyG index [9.36 (8.96, 9.77) vs. 8.89 (8.60, 9.27), P < 0.001]. Multivariate logistic regression identified SIICI (OR = 1.347, 95% CI: 1.190-1.524) and TyG (OR = 2.843, 95% CI: 1.794-4.507) as independent risk factors for CHD. The combined model achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.840 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.803-0.877) in the training set, with a sensitivity of 72.8% and specificity of 80.4%; in the validation set, the AUC was 0.851 (95% CI: 0.794-0.908), with a sensitivity of 75.8% and specificity of 80.0%. Calibration curves demonstrated good agreement (Hosmer-Lemeshow test: P = 0.597). DCA revealed positive net clinical benefit across a threshold probability range of 10-56%.
conclusionsBoth SIICI and TyG are independent risk factors for CHD in patients with T2DM. The combined diagnostic model exhibits excellent discriminative ability, good calibration, and stable generalizability. While head-to-head comparisons with traditional risk scores are needed, this model offers a non-invasive tool that integrates inflammatory and metabolic information for cardiovascular risk stratification in T2DM patients.
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.