Predictive models for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To inform a clinical practice guideline (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) considering sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes, we summarised the available evidence regarding the performance of validated risk models on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in these patients. METHODS: We systematically searched bibliographic databases in January 2020 to identify observational studies evaluating risk models for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, heart failure (HF) hospitalisations, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), myocardial infarction (MI) and ischaemic stroke in ambulatory adults with type 2 diabetes. Using a random effects model, we pooled discrimination measures for each model and outcome, separately, and descriptively summarised calibration plots, when available. We used the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool to assess risk of bias of each included study and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to evaluate our certainty in the evidence. RESULTS: Of 22 589 publications identified, 15 observational studies reporting on seven risk models proved eligible. Among the seven models with >1 validation cohort, the Risk Equations for Complications of Type 2 Diabetes (RECODe) had the best calibration in primary studies and the highest pooled discrimination measures for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality (C-statistics 0.75, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.80; high certainty), cardiovascular mortality (0.79, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.84; low certainty), ESKD (0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; low certainty), MI (0.72, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.74; moderate certainty) and stroke (0.71, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.74; moderate certainty). This model does not, however, predict risk of HF hospitalisations. CONCLUSION: Of available risk models, RECODe proved to have satisfactory calibration in primary validation studies and acceptable discrimination superior to other models, though with high risk of bias in most primary studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020168351.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".