MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023079687 · doi:10.1101/2020.05.05.20092494

A radiomics approach to artificial intelligence in echocardiography: Predicting post-operative right ventricular failure

2020· preprint· en· W3023079687 on OpenAlexaff
Rohan Shad, Nicolas Quach, Robyn Fong, Curt P. Langlotz, Sandra Kong, Patpilai Kasinpila, Myriam Amsallem, François Haddad, Yasuhiro Shudo, Y. Joseph Woo, Jeffrey J. Teuteberg, William Hiesinger

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersStanford Research Computing Center, Stanford University
KeywordsHeart failureMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineRadiomicsComplicationRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, we describe a novel ‘radiomics’ approach to an echocardiography artificial intelligence system that enables the extraction of hundreds of thousands of motion parameters per echocardiography video. We apply this AI system to the clinical problem of predicting post-operative right ventricular failure (RV failure) in heart failure patients receiving implantable circulatory life support systems. Post-operative RV failure is the single largest contributor to short-term mortality in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD); yet predicting which patient is at risk of developing this complication in the pre-operative setting, has remained beyond the abilities of experts in the field. We report results on testing datasets using a standard 10-fold cross validation. The AUC for the AI system trained using the Stanford LVAD dataset was 0.860 (95% CI 0.815-0.905; n = 290 patients) using pre-operative echocardiograms alone. We further show that our system outperforms board certified clinicians equipped with both contemporary risk scores (AUC 0.502 - 0.584) and independently measured echocardiographic metrics (0.519 – 0.598).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCardiac Structural Anomalies and RepairFrench-language works237,207