Machine learning predicts per-vessel early coronary revascularization after fast myocardial perfusion SPECT: results from multicentre REFINE SPECT registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To optimize per-vessel prediction of early coronary revascularization (ECR) within 90 days after fast single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) using machine learning (ML) and introduce a method for a patient-specific explanation of ML results in a clinical setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1980 patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent stress/rest 99mTc-sestamibi/tetrofosmin MPI with new-generation SPECT scanners were included. All patients had invasive coronary angiography within 6 months after SPECT MPI. ML utilized 18 clinical, 9 stress test, and 28 imaging variables to predict per-vessel and per-patient ECR with 10-fold cross-validation. Area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC) of ML was compared with standard quantitative analysis [total perfusion deficit (TPD)] and expert interpretation. ECR was performed in 958 patients (48%). Per-vessel, the AUC of ECR prediction by ML (AUC 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.77, 0.80]) was higher than by regional stress TPD (0.71, [0.70, 0.73]), combined-view stress TPD (AUC 0.71, 95% CI [0.69, 0.72]), or ischaemic TPD (AUC 0.72, 95% CI [0.71, 0.74]), all P < 0.001. Per-patient, the AUC of ECR prediction by ML (AUC 0.81, 95% CI [0.79, 0.83]) was higher than that of stress TPD, combined-view TPD, and ischaemic TPD, all P < 0.001. ML also outperformed nuclear cardiologists' expert interpretation of MPI for the prediction of early revascularization performance. A method to explain ML prediction for an individual patient was also developed. CONCLUSION: In patients with suspected CAD, the prediction of ECR by ML outperformed automatic MPI quantitation by TPDs (per-vessel and per-patient) or nuclear cardiologists' expert interpretation (per-patient).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".