Myocardial Ischemic Burden and Differences in Prognosis Among Patients With and Without Diabetes: Results From the Multicenter International REFINE SPECT Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Prevalence and prognostic impact of cardiovascular disease differ between patients with or without diabetes. We aimed to explore differences in the prevalence and prognosis of myocardial ischemia by automated quantification of total perfusion deficit (TPD) among patients with and without diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Of 20,418 individuals who underwent single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging, 2,951 patients with diabetes were matched to 2,951 patients without diabetes based on risk factors using propensity score. TPD was categorized as TPD = 0%, 0% < TPD < 1%, 1% ≤ TPD < 5%, 5% ≤ TPD ≤ 10%, and TPD >10%. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or late revascularization. RESULTS MACE risk was increased in patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes at each level of TPD above 0 (P < 0.001 for interaction). In patients with TPD >10%, patients with diabetes had greater than twice the MACE risk compared with patients without diabetes (annualized MACE rate 9.4 [95% CI 6.7–11.6] and 3.9 [95% CI 2.8–5.6], respectively, P < 0.001). Patients with diabetes with even very minimal TPD (0% < TPD < 1%) experienced a higher risk for MACE than those with 0% TPD (hazard ratio 2.05 [95% CI 1.21–3.47], P = 0.007). Patients with diabetes with a TPD of 0.5% had a similar MACE risk as patients without diabetes with a TPD of 8%. CONCLUSIONS For every level of TPD >0%, even a very minimal deficit of 0% < TPD < 1%, the MACE risk was higher in the patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. Patients with diabetes with minimal ischemia had comparable MACE risk as patients without diabetes with significant ischemia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".