Evidence Hub

Estimated glucose disposal rate outperforms other insulin resistance surrogates in predicting incident cardiovascular diseases in cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome stages 0–3 and the development of a machine learning prediction model: a nationwide prospective cohort study

Bingtian Dong, Yu-Ping Chen, Xiaocen Yang, Zheng-Dong Chen, Hua Zhang, Yuan Gao, En-Fa Zhao, Chao-Xue Zhang

Cardiovascular Diabetology, 2025

4,950 participants · 78 citations

Abstract

The American Heart Association recently introduced the concept of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome, highlighting the increasing importance of the complex interplay between metabolic, renal, and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). While substantial evidence supports a correlation between the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) and CVD events, its predictive value compared with other insulin resistance (IR) indices, such as triglyceride–glucose (TyG) index, TyG-waist circumference, TyG-body mass index, TyG-waist-to-height ratio, triglyceride-to-high density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio, and the metabolic score for insulin resistance, remains unclear. This prospective cohort study utilized data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). The individuals were categorized into four subgroups based on the quartiles of eGDR. The associations between eGDR and incident CVD were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analyses and restricted cubic spline. Seven machine learning models were utilized to assess the predictive value of the eGDR index for CVD events. To assess the model’s performance, we applied receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and precision-recall (PR) curves, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis. A total of 4,950 participants (mean age: 73.46 ± 9.93 years), including 50.4% females, were enrolled in the study. During follow-up between 2011 and 2018, 697 (14.1%) participants developed CVD, including 486 (9.8%)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,950 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free