MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905095595 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy564.p822

P822Predictive value of a biomarker panel for coronary plaque morphology in patients with stable coronary artery disease

2018· article· en· W2905095595 on OpenAlexaff
Michiel J. Bom, Eleanor Levin, R S Driessen, Ibrahim Danad, Cornelis C. van Kuijk, Albert C. van Rossum, Niels van Royen, James K. Min, Jonathon Leipsic, Charles A. Taylor, Max Nieuwdorp, Wolfgang Köenig, A.K. Groen, Erik S.G. Stroes, Paul Knaapen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAtherosclerosis and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicineBiomarkerValue (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Risk stratification in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is crucial to identify patients at risk for future events. Recently, the development of proximity extension assays (PEA) has enabled simultaneous measurement of large amounts of proteins, paving the way for the use of proteomics in large clinical populations. Purpose: To investigate the ability of targeted proteomics to identify coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived coronary plaque morphology in patients with suspected CAD. Methods: A total of 196 patients with suspected CAD underwent CCTA. Subsequently EDTA plasma was stored for further analysis. CCTA's were analyzed for the presence of coronary high-risk lesions, defined by the presence of ≥2 adverse plaque characteristics (positive remodeling, low attenuation plaque, spotty calcification and/or napkin ring sign). Plasma levels of 359 proteins were evaluated with the use of PEA and were used to generate deep learning models for high-risk coronary lesions and for the absence of CAD. The performance of these machine learning models was tested against traditional risk prediction with the Framingham risk model (refit Framingham) and Framingham risk model with additional clinical variables (refit Framingham plus), refit to the cohort of this study.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicAtherosclerosis and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207