Cluster Analysis of Cardiovascular Phenotypes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Established Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Potential Approach to Precision Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Phenotypic heterogeneity among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is ill defined. We used cluster analysis machine-learning algorithms to identify phenotypes among trial participants with T2DM and ASCVD. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used data from the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) study (n = 14,671), a cardiovascular outcome safety trial comparing sitagliptin with placebo in patients with T2DM and ASCVD (median follow-up 3.0 years). Cluster analysis using 40 baseline variables was conducted, with associations between clusters and the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina) assessed by Cox proportional hazards models. We replicated the results using the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) trial. RESULTS: Four distinct phenotypes were identified: cluster I included Caucasian men with a high prevalence of coronary artery disease; cluster II included Asian patients with a low BMI; cluster III included women with noncoronary ASCVD disease; and cluster IV included patients with heart failure and kidney dysfunction. The primary outcome occurred, respectively, in 11.6%, 8.6%, 10.3%, and 16.8% of patients in clusters I to IV. The crude difference in cardiovascular risk for the highest versus lowest risk cluster (cluster IV vs. II) was statistically significant (hazard ratio 2.74 [95% CI 2.29-3.29]). Similar phenotypes and outcomes were identified in EXSCEL. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM and ASCVD, cluster analysis identified four clinically distinct groups. Further cardiovascular phenotyping is warranted to inform patient care and optimize clinical trial designs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".