Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Endocrinol.

Sec. Clinical Diabetes

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1595471

Correlation study on the risk of cardiovascular adverse events in diabetic foot patients based on machine learning -A retrospective cohort study

Provisionally accepted
Liran  ZhengLiran Zheng1Jiageng  ChenJiageng Chen2Wenyan  XuWenyan Xu2Min  DingMin Ding2Juan  LiJuan Li2Fenghua  TianFenghua Tian2Lei  ZhangLei Zhang2Qianqian  LiQianqian Li2Shuai  WangShuai Wang2Zeyu  WangZeyu Wang2Hairong  MaHairong Ma2Xuecan  CuiXuecan Cui2Bai  ChangBai Chang2*Meijun  WangMeijun Wang2*
  • 1Institute of Endocrinology of Tianjin Medical University Metabolic Hospital, Tianjin, China
  • 2Tianjin Medical College, Institute of Endocrinology of Tianjin Medical University Metabolic Hospital, Tianjin, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

【Abstract】Diabetic Foot (DF), as a serious complication of diabetes, is closely related to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality. However, research on predictive models for the MACE risk in DF patients is not sufficient. The purpose of this study is to construct a prognostic model for the MACE risk in patients with diabetic foot ulcers and provide a reference tool for clinical individualized management. Method: This study retrospectively collected data of DF patients who were hospitalized and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria in a tertiary first-class comprehensive hospital mainly engaged in metabolic diseases in Tianjin from January 2018 to January 2020. The follow-up outcome was the occurrence of MACE within 5 years after discharge. Multiple imputation (MI) method was used to fill in the missing data. Based on the processed data, in terms of modeling methods, the top three frequently used methods were used. Logistic regression, random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM) were used respectively to analyze influencing factors. The performance of each model was compared by using confusion matrix, ROC curve and AUC value. The data set was divided into training set and test set according to the proportion of 80%/20%. Finally, the model effect was verified on the test set. The study finally included a total of 504 patients with DF. Among them, 147 cases (29.17%) experienced MACE events within five years. The AUC of the RF model in this study was 0.70, the AUC of the Logistic regression model was 0.62, and the AUC of the SVM model was 0.60. Conclusion: All three models established in this research have good clinical predictive ability. Among them, the clinical prediction model based on RF has the best effect and can effectively predict the risk of MACE in DF patients, helping clinical medical staff formulate personalized treatment plans. 【Keywords】Diabetic foot1, major adverse cardiovascular events2 Random forest model3 Risk

Keywords: Diabetic Foot, Major adverse cardiovascular events, Random forest mode, risk prediction, relevance

Received: 18 Mar 2025; Accepted: 08 Jul 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Zheng, Chen, Xu, Ding, Li, Tian, Zhang, Li, Wang, Wang, Ma, Cui, Chang and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
Bai Chang, Tianjin Medical College, Institute of Endocrinology of Tianjin Medical University Metabolic Hospital, Tianjin, China
Meijun Wang, Tianjin Medical College, Institute of Endocrinology of Tianjin Medical University Metabolic Hospital, Tianjin, China

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.