Multi‐parametric system for risk stratification in mitral regurgitation: A multi‐task Gaussian prediction approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that a multi-parametric approach incorporating medical comorbidity information, electrocardiographic P-wave indices, echocardiographic assessment, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) calculated from laboratory data can improve risk stratification in mitral regurgitation (MR). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with mitral regurgitation between 1 March 2005 and 30 October 2018 from a single centre were retrospectively analysed. Outcomes analysed were incident atrial fibrillation (AF), transient ischemic attack (TIA)/stroke and mortality. RESULTS: This study cohort included 706 patients, of whom 171 had normal inter-atrial conduction, 257 had inter-atrial block (IAB) and 266 had AF at baseline. Logistic regression analysis showed that age, hypertension and mean P-wave duration (PWD) were significant predictors of new-onset AF. Low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), abnormal P-wave terminal force in V1 (PTFV1) predicted TIA/stroke. Age, smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolaemia, ischemic heart disease, secondary mitral regurgitation, urea, creatinine, NLR, PNI, left atrial diameter (LAD), left ventricular end-diastolic dimension, LVEF, pulmonary arterial systolic pressure, IAB, baseline AF and heart failure predicted all-cause mortality. A multi-task Gaussian process learning model demonstrated significant improvement in risk stratification compared to logistic regression and a decision tree method. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-parametric approach incorporating multi-modality clinical data improves risk stratification in mitral regurgitation. Multi-task machine learning can significantly improve overall risk stratification performance.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".