MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981946351 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz747.0001

29Prognostic safety of automatic cancellation of rest myocardial perfusion scan by machine learning: a report from multicenter REFINE SPECT registry of new generation SPECT

2019· article· en· W2981946351 on OpenAlexaff
Lien-Hsin Hu, Tali Sharir, Mathews B. Fish, Terrence D. Ruddy, Marcelo F. Di Carli, Sharmila Dorbala, Andrew J. Einstein, Julián Betancur, Evann Eisenberg, Frédéric Commandeur, Guido Germano, D Damini, Daniel S. Berman, Piotr J. Slomka

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSSS*Myocardial perfusion imagingReceiver operating characteristicRevascularizationMyocardial infarctionPopulationNuclear medicinePerfusion scanningCutoffStress testing (software)PerfusionRadiologyArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background We aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) computer score derived from stress imaging and clinical data, which indicates if the rest scan could be automatically and safely canceled in the routine stress/rest myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS). Methods A total of 20414 stress/rest cases from the REFINE SPECT registry collected from 5 sites in 3 countries with Tc-99m-based MPS images, clinical data, and clinical follow-up were included in the study. All images were automatically processed at our Medical Center. The automatically generated myocardial contours were checked by experienced technologists. In total, 93 variables (26 clinical, 17 stress-test, and 50 stress-imaging variables) were used to build a LogitBoost model for prediction of adverse events (AE), including coronary revascularization, death, myocardial infarction, and unstable angina. 10-fold cross-validation was performed to separate test from validation data for the assessment of ML. The overall ML predictive performance was compared to quantitative (stress total perfusion deficit [TPD]) by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). ML cut-off (ML1) to simulate the decision of cancellation of the rest scan was set to result in the same % of normal scans as these determined by the normal clinical reader diagnosis on a 4-point scale in the whole population, or the same % of scans with visual summed stress scores (SSS) = 0 in the subpopulation with available SSS. A second ML cutoff (ML2) was established to achieve a 1% annual risk of AE. The annual risk of AE of the normal ML score was compared with normal clinical diagnosis and with the finding of SSS = 0. Results The mean follow-up interval was 4.7±1.5 years. Overall, 3542 AE were observed (3.7% annual risk). The AUC for AE was higher for ML (0.780±0.005) than for stress TPD (0.698±0.006) (p<0.001). Normal clinical diagnosis was reported in 60% cases. In 70% (14242 scans) with available segmental scores, 53% had SSS=0. ML1 and ML2 thresholds were compared with normal visual diagnosis and with SSS = 0 for AE (Figure). ML1 achieved a lower annual risk (1.5%) than normal clinical diagnosis (2.1%) or SSS = 0 (1.6% versus 2.3%) (p<0.001). The more conservative ML2 threshold with a 1% annual risk of AE resulted in a 40% canceling rate. Figure 1 Conclusion ML could be used to automatically cancel the rest MPS scan with the same proportion as using normal visual MPS reading, but with significantly lower AE rate in stress-only scans. Acknowledgement/Funding R01HL089765 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Institutes of Health (NHLBI/NIH)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→