Left Ventricular Function and Volume with Coronary CT Angiography Improves Risk Stratification and Identification of Patients at Risk for Incident Mortality: Results from 7758 Patients in the Prospective Multinational CONFIRM Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess whether gradations of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) and volumes measured with coronary computed tomography (CT) would augment risk stratification and discrimination for incident mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained when required. Subjects without known coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent cardiac CT angiography with quantitative LV measurements were categorized according to LVEF (≥ 55%, 45%-54.9%, 35%-44.9%, or <35%). LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) and LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) were classified as normal (≥ 90 mL) or abnormal (≥ 200 mL). CAD extent and severity was categorized as none, nonobstructive, obstructive (≥ 50%), one-vessel, two-vessel, and three-vessel or left main disease. LVEF and volumes were assessed for risk prediction and discrimination of future mortality by using Cox hazards model and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, respectively. RESULTS: During a follow-up of 2.0 years ± 0.9, 7758 patients (mean age, 58.5 years ± 13.0; 4220 male patients [54.4%]) were studied. At multivariable analysis, worsening LVEF was independently associated with mortality for moderately (hazard ratio = 3.14, P < .001) and severely (hazard ratio = 5.19, P < .001) abnormal ejection fraction. LVEF demonstrated improved discrimination for mortality (Az = 0.816) when compared with CAD risk factors alone (Az = 0.781) or CAD risk factors plus extent and severity. At multivariable analysis of a subgroup of 3706 individuals, abnormal LVEDV (hazard ratio = 4.02) and LVESV (hazard ratio = 6.46) helped predict mortality (P < .001). Similarly, LVESV and LVEDV demonstrated improved discrimination when compared with CAD risk factors or CAD extent and severity (P < .05). CONCLUSION: LV dysfunction and volumes measured with cardiac CT angiography augment risk prediction and discrimination for future mortality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".