Development and Validation of a Machine Learning-Based Approach to Identify High-Risk Diabetic Cardiomyopathy Phenotype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Abnormalities in specific echocardiographic parameters and cardiac biomarkers have been reported among individuals with diabetes. However, a comprehensive characterization of diabetic cardiomyopathy (DbCM), a subclinical stage of myocardial abnormalities that precede the development of clinical heart failure (HF), is lacking. In this study, we developed and validated a machine learning-based clustering approach to identify the high-risk DbCM phenotype based on echocardiographic and cardiac biomarker parameters. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among individuals with diabetes from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort who were free of cardiovascular disease and other potential aetiologies of cardiomyopathy (training, n = 1199), unsupervised hierarchical clustering was performed using echocardiographic parameters and cardiac biomarkers of neurohormonal stress and chronic myocardial injury (total 25 variables). The high-risk DbCM phenotype was identified based on the incidence of HF on follow-up. A deep neural network (DeepNN) classifier was developed to predict DbCM in the ARIC training cohort and validated in an external community-based cohort (Cardiovascular Health Study [CHS]; n = 802) and an electronic health record (EHR) cohort (n = 5071). Clustering identified three phenogroups in the derivation cohort. Phenogroup-3 (n = 324, 27% of the cohort) had significantly higher 5-year HF incidence than other phenogroups (12.1% vs. 4.6% [phenogroup 2] vs. 3.1% [phenogroup 1]) and was identified as the high-risk DbCM phenotype. The key echocardiographic predictors of high-risk DbCM phenotype were higher NT-proBNP levels, increased left ventricular mass and left atrial size, and worse diastolic function. In the CHS and University of Texas (UT) Southwestern EHR validation cohorts, the DeepNN classifier identified 16% and 29% of participants with DbCM, respectively. Participants with (vs. without) high-risk DbCM phenotype in the external validation cohorts had a significantly higher incidence of HF (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.61 [1.18-2.19] in CHS and 1.34 [1.08-1.65] in the UT Southwestern EHR cohort). CONCLUSION: Machine learning-based techniques may identify 16% to 29% of individuals with diabetes as having a high-risk DbCM phenotype who may benefit from more aggressive implementation of HF preventive strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".