MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883464116 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy404

Clinical applications of machine learning in cardiovascular disease and its relevance to cardiac imaging

2018· review· en· W2883464116 on OpenAlexaff
Subhi J. Al’Aref, Khalil Anchouche, Gurpreet Singh, Piotr J. Slomka, Kranthi K. Kolli, Amit Kumar, Mohit Pandey, Gabriel Maliakal, Alexander R. van Rosendael, Ashley Beecy, Daniel S. Berman, Jonathan Leipsic, Koen Nieman, Daniele Andreini, Gianluca Pontone, U. Joseph Schoepf, Leslee J. Shaw, Hyuk‐Jae Chang, Jagat Narula, Jeroen J. Bax, Yuanfang Guan, James K. Min

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseMachine learningRelevance (law)ModalitiesArtificial intelligenceDiseaseCoronary angiographyCardiac imagingCardiologyInternal medicineComputer scienceMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed key aspects of human life. Machine learning (ML), which is a subset of AI wherein machines autonomously acquire information by extracting patterns from large databases, has been increasingly used within the medical community, and specifically within the domain of cardiovascular diseases. In this review, we present a brief overview of ML methodologies that are used for the construction of inferential and predictive data-driven models. We highlight several domains of ML application such as echocardiography, electrocardiography, and recently developed non-invasive imaging modalities such as coronary artery calcium scoring and coronary computed tomography angiography. We conclude by reviewing the limitations associated with contemporary application of ML algorithms within the cardiovascular disease field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations539
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207