Predictive Model for High-Risk Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with high-risk coronary artery disease (CAD) may be difficult to identify. METHODS: Using the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) cohort randomized to coronary computed tomographic angiography (n=4589), 2 predictive models were developed for high-risk CAD, defined as left main stenosis (≥50% stenosis) or either (1) ≥50% stenosis [50] or (2) ≥70% stenosis [70] of 3 vessels or 2-vessel CAD involving the proximal left anterior descending artery. Pretest predictors were examined using stepwise logistic regression and assessed for discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: High-risk CAD was identified in 6.6% [50] and 2.4% [70] of patients. Models developed to predict high-risk CAD discriminated well: [50], bias-corrected C statistic=0.73 (95% CI, 0.71-0.76); [70], bias-corrected C statistic=0.73 (95% CI, 0.68-0.77). Variables predictive of CAD in both models included family history of premature CAD, age, male sex, lower glomerular filtration rate, diabetes mellitus, elevated systolic blood pressure, and angina. Additionally, smoking history was predictive of [50] CAD and sedentary lifestyle of [70] CAD. Both models characterized high-risk CAD better than the Pooled Cohort Equation (area under the curve=0.70 and 0.71 for [50] and [70], respectively) and Diamond-Forrester risk scores (area under the curve=0.68 and 0.71, respectively). Both [50] and [70] CAD was associated with more frequent invasive interventions and adverse events than non-high-risk CAD (all P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary practice, 2.4% to 6.6% of stable, symptomatic patients requiring noninvasive testing have high-risk CAD. A simple combination of pretest clinical variables improves prediction of high-risk CAD over traditional risk assessments. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01174550.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".