Precision Prognostics for Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Precision medicine has the potential to improve cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies to identify potentially novel prognostic factors that may improve CVD risk prediction in T2D. Out of 9380 studies identified, 416 studies met inclusion criteria. Outcomes were reported for 321 biomarker studies, 48 genetic marker studies, and 47 risk score/model studies. Results Out of all evaluated biomarkers, only 13 showed improvement in prediction performance. Results of pooled meta-analyses, non-pooled analyses, and assessments of improvement in prediction performance and risk of bias, yielded the highest predictive utility for N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (high-evidence), troponin-T (TnT) (moderate-evidence), triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index (moderate-evidence), Genetic Risk Score for Coronary Heart Disease (GRS-CHD) (moderate-evidence); moderate predictive utility for coronary computed tomography angiography (low-evidence), single-photon emission computed tomography (low-evidence), pulse wave velocity (moderate-evidence); and low predictive utility for C-reactive protein (moderate-evidence), coronary artery calcium score (low-evidence), galectin-3 (low-evidence), troponin-I (low-evidence), carotid plaque (low-evidence), and growth differentiation factor-15 (low-evidence). Risk scores showed modest discrimination, with lower performance in populations different from the original development cohort. Conclusions Despite high interest in this topic, very few studies conducted rigorous analyses to demonstrate incremental predictive utility beyond established CVD risk factors for T2D. The most promising markers identified were NT-proBNP, TnT, TyG and GRS-CHD, with the highest strength of evidence for NT-proBNP. Further research is needed to determine their clinical utility in risk stratification and management of CVD in T2D. Plain Language Summary Patients with T2D are at high risk for CVD but predicting who will experience a cardiac event is challenging. Current risk tools and prognostic factors, such as laboratory tests, may not accurately predict risk in all patient populations. There is a need for personalized risk prediction tools to classify patients more accurately so that CVD prevention can be targeted to those who need it most. This study summarizes the best available evidence for novel biomarkers, genetic markers, and risk scores that predict CVD in individuals with T2D. We found that four laboratory markers and a genetic risk score for CHD had high predictive utility beyond traditional CVD risk factors. Risk scores had modest predictive utility when tested in diverse populations. More studies are needed to determine their usefulness in clinical practice. The highest strength of evidence was observed for NT-proBNP, a biomarker currently measured to monitor patients with heart failure in clinical practice, but not for CVD prediction in T2D.
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 | 0.021 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".