Results
CAD, T2DM
CAD
In the test set, the areas under the curve (AUCs) of Model 2 and Model 4 were 0.930 and 0.929, respectively, with higher recognition effectiveness compared to the other two models (each p < 0.001). Of these models, Model 2 had higher diagnostic efficacy for CAD than Model 1 (p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.129–0.350]). However, Model 4 did not improve the effectiveness of the identification of CAD compared to Model 2 (p = 0.776); similarly, the AUC did not significantly differ between Model 3 (AUC = 0.693) and Model 1 (AUC = 0.691, p = 0.382). Overall, Model 2 was rated better for the diagnosis of CAD in patients with T2DM.