Machine learning of clinical variables and coronary artery calcium scoring for the prediction of obstructive coronary artery disease on coronary computed tomography angiography: analysis from the CONFIRM registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Symptom-based pretest probability scores that estimate the likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in stable chest pain have moderate accuracy. We sought to develop a machine learning (ML) model, utilizing clinical factors and the coronary artery calcium score (CACS), to predict the presence of obstructive CAD on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). METHODS AND RESULTS: The study screened 35 281 participants enrolled in the CONFIRM registry, who underwent ≥64 detector row CCTA evaluation because of either suspected or previously established CAD. A boosted ensemble algorithm (XGBoost) was used, with data split into a training set (80%) on which 10-fold cross-validation was done and a test set (20%). Performance was assessed of the (1) ML model (using 25 clinical and demographic features), (2) ML + CACS, (3) CAD consortium clinical score, (4) CAD consortium clinical score + CACS, and (5) updated Diamond-Forrester (UDF) score. The study population comprised of 13 054 patients, of whom 2380 (18.2%) had obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis). Machine learning with CACS produced the best performance [area under the curve (AUC) of 0.881] compared with ML alone (AUC of 0.773), CAD consortium clinical score (AUC of 0.734), and with CACS (AUC of 0.866) and UDF (AUC of 0.682), P < 0.05 for all comparisons. CACS, age, and gender were the highest ranking features. CONCLUSION: A ML model incorporating clinical features in addition to CACS can accurately estimate the pretest likelihood of obstructive CAD on CCTA. In clinical practice, the utilization of such an approach could improve risk stratification and help guide downstream management.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".