Abstract 19498: Abnormal Left ventricular Volumes Identified by Computed Tomography Improves Risk Stratification and Discrimination of Patients At Risk of Increased Mortality: Results from 3706 Patients in the Prospective Multicenter International CONFIRM Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prior studies have evaluated the prognostic value of abnormal left ventricular end-systolic (LVESV) and end-diastolic (LVEDV) volumes by cardiac CT angiography. These studies were limited to smaller studies and single centers. We evaluated whether left ventricular volumes improves risk stratification and discrimination for mortality prediction in a large prospective study. Methods: From 27125 subjects in the CONFIRM registry, we identified subjects without prior known coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent CCTA with quantitative LVESV and LVEDV assessment. LVESV and LVEDV were categorized as normal (< 90ml and 90ml and > 200ml, respectively). CAD extent and severity was categorized as none (0%), non-obstructive ( 50%) 1-, 2- and 3-vessel disease. LVESV, LVEDV, and CAD were examined in relation to risk prediction and discrimination for future mortality employing Cox proportional hazards models and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), respectively. Results: In a follow-up of 2.2+0.9 years, 3706 patients (59.1 + 12.6 years, 54.2% male) were studied with 207 (5.6%) with abnormal LVESV and 190 (5.1%) with abnormal LVEDV. Abnormal volumes were associated with male gender, hypertension, smoking and younger age (p<0.05 for all). In multivariable analyses, increased volumes was independently associated with mortality for abnormal LVESV (hazards ratio (HR) 6.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.75-11.46, p<0.001) and abnormal LVEDV (HR 4.00, 95% confidence interval 1.98-8.08, p<0.001). Abnormal LVEDV (AUC 0.8178) and LVESV (0.8335) improved discrimination for identification of individuals at risk of death, when compared to CAD risk factors alone (0.7745) or CAD extent and severity and risk factors (0.7819) [p<0.001]. Conclusions: Incremental to clinical variables and CAD extent and severity, abnormal left ventricular volumes by CCTA offers improved 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".