Bragatston study protocol: a multicentre cohort study on automated quantification of cardiovascular calcifications on radiotherapy planning CT scans for cardiovascular risk prediction in patients with breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is an important cause of death in breast cancer survivors. Some breast cancer treatments including anthracyclines, trastuzumab and radiotherapy can increase the risk of CVD, especially for patients with pre-existing CVD risk factors. Early identification of patients at increased CVD risk may allow switching to less cardiotoxic treatments, active surveillance or treatment of CVD risk factors. One of the strongest independent CVD risk factors is the presence and extent of coronary artery calcifications (CAC). In clinical practice, CAC are generally quantified on ECG-triggered cardiac CT scans. Patients with breast cancer treated with radiotherapy routinely undergo radiotherapy planning CT scans of the chest, and those scans could provide the opportunity to routinely assess CAC before a potentially cardiotoxic treatment. The Bragatston study aims to investigate the association between calcifications in the coronary arteries, aorta and heart valves (hereinafter called 'cardiovascular calcifications') measured automatically on planning CT scans of patients with breast cancer and CVD risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In a first step, we will optimise and validate a deep learning algorithm for automated quantification of cardiovascular calcifications on planning CT scans of patients with breast cancer. Then, in a multicentre cohort study (University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam and Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands), the association between cardiovascular calcifications measured on planning CT scans of patients with breast cancer (n≈16 000) and incident (non-)fatal CVD events will be evaluated. To assess the added predictive value of these calcifications over traditional CVD risk factors and treatment characteristics, a case-cohort analysis will be performed among all cohort members diagnosed with a CVD event during follow-up (n≈200) and a random sample of the baseline cohort (n≈600). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Boards of the participating hospitals decided that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act does not apply. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03206333.
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 | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.010 |
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".