ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2026
A machine learning-based framework for predicting type 2 diabetes mellitus using hematological indices.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on "A machine learning-based framework for predicting type 2 diabetes mellitus using hematological indices".American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
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
Objective: This study aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) framework to predict incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using routinely available hematological and renal biomarkers, and to assess their added predictive value over conventional clinical risk factors. Methods: We analyzed data from 6093 diabetes-free participants from the prospective Mashhad Stroke and Heart Atherosclerotic Disorder (MASHAD) cohort. Predictors included white blood cell count (WBC), red blood cell count (RBC), red cell distribution width (RDW), and other hematological/renal factors. We employed logistic regression and multiple ML models (Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM), optimized via grid search and cross-validation. Results: Multivariate logistic regression identified RBC, WBC, and RDW as independent predictors of T2DM. The Random Forest model achieved the highest performance with a ROC-AUC of 0.73, an accuracy of 0.67, and correctly identified 223 of 347 incident T2DM cases Using a probability threshold of 0.20, the Random Forest model achieved a sensitivity of 0.618, a specificity of 0.707, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.327, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.889 on the independent test set Feature importance analysis identified metabolic syndrome, BMI, uric acid, and age as the strongest contributors, while WBC, RBC, and NLR were the most influential hematological predictors. Conclusion: Routine hematological indices, including RBC, WBC, and RDW, were independently associated with incident T2DM, while metabolic syndrome, BMI, uric acid, and age contributed most strongly to overall model prediction. ML provides a complementary approach for early risk stratification, although further validation is required before clinical implementation.
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.