Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in patients with metabolic-associated fatty liver disease: a machine learning approach.

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with an increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, although the exact mechanism(s) are less clear. Moreover, the relationship between newly redefined metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and CVD risk has been poorly investigated. Data-driven machine learning (ML) techniques may be beneficial in discovering the most important risk factors for CVD in patients with MAFLD. METHODS: In this observational study, the patients with MAFLD underwent subclinical atherosclerosis assessment and blood biochemical analysis. Patients were split into two groups based on the presence of CVD (defined as at least one of the following: coronary artery disease; myocardial infarction; coronary bypass grafting; stroke; carotid stenosis; lower extremities artery stenosis). The ML techniques were utilized to construct a model which could identify individuals with the highest risk of CVD. We exploited the multiple logistic regression classifier operating on the most discriminative patient's parameters selected by univariate feature ranking or extracted using principal component analysis (PCA). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated for the investigated classifiers, and the optimal cut-point values were extracted from the ROC curves using the Youden index, the closest to (0, 1) criteria and the Index of Union methods. RESULTS: In 191 patients with MAFLD (mean age: 58, SD: 12 years; 46% female), there were 47 (25%) patients who had the history of CVD. The most important clinical variables included hypercholesterolemia, the plaque scores, and duration of diabetes. The five, ten and fifteen most discriminative parameters extracted using univariate feature ranking and utilized to fit the ML models resulted in AUC of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.90, p < 0.0001), 0.86 (95% CI 0.80-0.91, p < 0.0001) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.82-0.92, p < 0.0001), whereas the classifier fitted over 10 principal components extracted using PCA followed by the parallel analysis obtained AUC of 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.91, p < 0.0001). The best model operating on 5 most discriminative features correctly identified 114/144 (79.17%) low-risk and 40/47 (85.11%) high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: A ML approach demonstrated high performance in identifying MAFLD patients with prevalent CVD based on the easy-to-obtain patient parameters.

Relationship of vitamin D deficiency with cardiovascular disease and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Silesia Diabetes-Heart Project.

INTRODUCTION: Vitamin D (VD) has a pleiotropic effect on many health­related aspects, yet the results of studies regarding vitamin D deficiency (VDD) and both glycemic control and cardiovascular disease (CVD) are conflicting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to determine the prevalence of VDD and its associations with CVD and glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an observational study in T2DM patients recruited at the diabetology clinic in Zabrze, Poland (April-September 2019 and April-September 2020). The presence of CVD was determined based on medical records. Blood biochemical parameters, densitometry, and carotid artery ultrasound examination were performed. Control of diabetes was assessed based on glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. A serum VD level below 20 ng/ml was considered as VDD. RESULTS: The prevalence of VDD in 197 patients was 36%. CVD was evident in 27% of the patients with VDD and in 33% of the patients with VD within the normal range (vitamin D sufficiency [VDS]) (P = 0.34). The difference between the groups regarding diabetes control was insignificant (P = 0.05), as for the VDD patients the median value (interquartile range) of HbA1c was 7.5% (6.93%-7.9%), and for VDS patients it was 7.5% (6.56%-7.5%). The VDD patients were more often treated with sodium­glucose cotransporter­2 inhibitors (SGLT­2is) (44% vs 25%; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: About one­third of the patients showed VDD. The VDD and VDS groups did not differ in terms of CVD occurrence and the difference in glycemic control was insignificant. The patients with VDD were more often treated with SGLT­2is, which requires further investigation.