PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 3, 2026Scientific Reports2 citationsOpen Access

Development and evaluation of cardiovascular disease risk prediction models for patients with type 2 diabetes

YYYue YangTLTing LiuCLChe-Yi Liao

Key Points

  • This research aims to assess the predictive accuracy of current cardiovascular disease risk equations for patients with type 2 diabetes and explore the necessity of a T2D-specific model.
  • Developed a Weibull Accelerated Failure Time survival model for predicting 3-year CVD risk.
  • Analyzed data from 23,795 patients with type 2 diabetes from the All of Us dataset.
  • Included sociodemographic data, physical measurements, medication histories, and past CVD events.
  • Weibull AFT model achieved a C-index of 0.646, outperforming PREVENT's 0.465.
  • Concordance Fractions were higher for Weibull AFT (0.610–0.674) compared to PREVENT (0.541–0.600).
  • Concordance Imparity was comparable, indicating fair predictions across different subgroups.

Abstract

To facilitate treatment decisions in people at risk of Cardiovascular Disease (CVD), several risk equations such as the Pooled Cohort Equations and Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) equations have been developed to estimate CVD risk for primary prevention patients. However, it is unclear whether these equations achieve high predictive accuracy and fairness in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and whether a T2D-specific risk equation is needed. Accordingly, we developed a Weibull Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) survival model for predicting the 3-year CVD risk in 23,795 patients with T2D from the All of Us dataset, using sociodemographic information, physical measurements, medication, and CVD history. Among patients without CVD history, our Weibull AFT (vs. PREVENT) achieved a greater C-index (0.646 vs. 0.465), greater Concordance Fractions (0.610–0.674 vs. 0.541–0.600), and comparable Concordance Imparity (0.006 vs. 0.002) across sex and race/ethnicity (0.065 vs. 0.058) subgroups. Our findings highlight the need for a T2D-specific CVD risk equation and demonstrate the value of diverse datasets for developing fair and accurate predictive models.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69cf5d1f5a333a821460ab97https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-45129-5
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper