Stress Myocardial Perfusion PET Provides Incremental Risk Prediction in Patients with and Patients without Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion PET in patients with and patients without diabetes mellitus. Materials and Methods The authors performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively acquired data from a multicenter registry cohort of 7061 patients, including 1966 with diabetes mellitus, who underwent clinically indicated rest-stress rubidium 82 (82Rb) myocardial perfusion PET. The mean patient age (±standard deviation) was 63.3 years ± 13. Of the 7061 patients, 3348 were women (47.4%), 2296 (32.5%) had known coronary artery disease, and 1895 (26.8%) had previously undergone revascularization. The primary end point was cardiac death (n = 169) assessed at a mean of 2.5 years ± 1.5. The authors used Cox proportional hazards models and risk reclassification measures stratified according to diabetes status. Results In multivariable models adjusting for established clinical predictors, increasing magnitude of stress myocardial perfusion abnormality was associated with greater risk of cardiac death in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.1, 16.8) for severely abnormal myocardium compared with normal myocardium. The addition of stress myocardial perfusion imaging results significantly improved the fit of a clinical model for predicting cardiac death in patients with and patients without diabetes. Myocardial perfusion PET improved risk reclassification for cardiac death in patients with diabetes (category-based net reclassification index: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.60, P < .001). Among diabetic patients, an abnormal myocardial perfusion PET scan was associated with increased risk of cardiac death (HR: 4.4; 95% CI: 2.0, 9.7) in all important clinical subgroups based on age, sex, obesity, or prior revascularization. Conclusion In a large cohort of patients referred for clinical 82Rb stress PET, myocardial perfusion imaging results provided incremental risk prediction of cardiac death in patients with and patients without diabetes mellitus. Keywords: Adults, Arteriosclerosis, Cardiac, Ischemia/Infarction, Outcomes Analysis, PET/CT © RSNA, 2019 Supplemental material is available for this article.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".