ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2026
Enhanced prediction of coronary heart disease risk in diabetic patients via Machine learning incorporating multiple inflammatory and metabolic indices: A study with Dual-Cohort validation.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) remains a leading cause of mortality worldwide, with individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM) facing markedly elevated risk due to complex inflammatory and metabolic disturbances. Emerging composite inflammatory and metabolic indices have demonstrated promise in enhancing cardiovascular risk stratification, yet research quantifying and comparing their respective predictive performance and assessing their relative contributions remains limited. This study aimed to develop a clinically applicable model for early CHD risk prediction in diabetic patients using novel composite inflammatory and metabolic indices. Methods: This study utilized data from 3379 diabetic participants in the NHANES 1999-2018 survey cycles. Additionally, an independent external set of 902 patients from Qilu Hospital of Shandong University served as the validation cohort. Novel inflammatory and metabolic indices were calculated. Feature selection was performed via LASSO regression, the univariate logistic regression, and the Boruta algorithm. Nine machine learning (ML) models were developed using selected predictors. Model performance was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values were used to interpret model predictions and identify key contributing features. Results: Five composite indices UHR (uric acid-to-HDL ratio), MHR (monocyte-to-HDL ratio), NPAR (neutrophil-to-albumin ratio), NLR (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio), and AIP (atherogenic index of plasma) were identified as robust predictors of CHD. The random forest (RF) algorithm achieved the highest performance, with an AUC of 0.852 in the internal validation set and 0.713 in the external cohort. Calibration plots, Brier scores, and decision curve analysis further confirmed the RF model's predictive reliability and clinical utility. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) value analysis revealed that UHR, MHR, NLR, age, and hypertension were the key features driving CHD prediction. Conclusion: We developed and externally validated an ML model incorporating five composite inflammatory and metabolic indices (UHR, MHR, NLR, NPAR, AIP), which demonstrated promising performance in predicting CHD risk in diabetic 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.