MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161427936 · doi:10.2196/80377

Quantifying the Predictive Power of Social Determinants of Health in Cardiovascular Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Progression Using XGBoost: A Retrospective Cohort Study (Preprint)

2025· article· en· W7161427936 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hielke Muizelaar, Marcel Haas, Maarten van Aken, Rimke Vos, Marco Spruit

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsType 2 diabetesRetrospective cohort studyDiseaseDiabetes mellitusPredictive powerSocial determinants of healthCohort studyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and type 2 diabetes (DM2) are influenced not only by biomedical risk factors but also by social determinants of health (SDOH). While the inclusion of SDOH in predictive models is increasingly advocated, few studies have quantified their specific contribution in a high-risk clinical cohort using robust statistical and machine-learning approaches. Objective: This study aims to quantify the added predictive value of SDOH in predicting CVD or DM2 disease onset within 5 years, within 10 years, and at any time during follow-up among individuals already at elevated risk and to compare this added value across multiple modeling setups and frameworks. Methods: We used a large, linked dataset of over 58,000 inclusion events from the Extramural Leiden University Medical Center Academic Network data warehouse in the Netherlands, combining structured coded diagnosis and medication records from general practitioners with individual-level socioeconomic data from Statistics Netherlands. Individuals aged 30 years and older without prior DM2 or CVD were followed to assess disease progression. We trained Cox proportional hazards (CPH) and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) models to predict progression to DM2 or CVD within 5 and 10 years and overall. All analyses were performed using the R programming language. Experiments included comparisons of Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2, CPH, and XGBoost models; evaluation of time-bound and survival-based formulations; and quantification of SDOH impact using feature subset XGBoost models and Shapley additive explanations (SHAP)-based importance. Results: For the 5-year prediction of CVD or DM2, the combined XGBoost model using biomedical and SDOH predictors achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.738, significantly outperforming the biomedical-only model (AUC=0.728; P=.01) and the SDOH-only model (AUC=0.691; P<.001). For 10-year CVD prediction, XGBoost achieved an AUC of 0.729, outperforming CPH (AUC=0.718; P=.02) and Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (AUC=0.697; P<.001). For overall event prediction, XGBoost again performed best (AUC=0.719), significantly higher than CPH (AUC=0.704; P<.001). SHAP analyses showed that biomedical predictors contributed most strongly on a per-feature basis, while a subset of SDOH variables, particularly income- and benefit-related indicators, provided complementary predictive signal and ranked among the most influential predictors. Conclusions: Incorporating SDOH improved the prediction of CVD and DM2 onset in a clinically defined high-risk cohort. Across hundreds of linked predictors, SDOH provided measurable incremental discrimination beyond biomedical risk factors, and income- and benefit-related variables ranked among the most influential features. SHAP analyses indicated that this added value was largely driven by a limited subset of highly informative social predictors. These findings support integrating structured SDOH into clinically actionable risk stratification models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207