MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034798037 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/jeaa134

Prognostically safe stress-only single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging guided by machine learning: report from REFINE SPECT

2020· article· en· W3034798037 on OpenAlexaff
Lien-Hsin Hu, Robert J.H. Miller, Tali Sharir, Frédéric Commandeur, Richard Ríos, Andrew J. Einstein, Mathews B. Fish, Terrence D. Ruddy, Philipp A. Kaufmann, Albert J. Sinusas, Edward J. Miller, Timothy M. Bateman, Sharmila Dorbala, Marcelo F. Di Carli, Joanna X. Liang, Evann Eisenberg, Damini Dey, Daniel S. Berman, Piotr J. Slomka

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMaceMyocardial perfusion imagingMedicineSingle-photon emission computed tomographyPerfusionNuclear medicineEmission computed tomographyPositron emission tomographyAlgorithmInternal medicineComputer scienceMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) stress-only protocols reduce radiation exposure and cost but require clinicians to make immediate decisions regarding rest scan cancellation. We developed a machine learning (ML) approach for automatic rest scan cancellation and evaluated its prognostic safety. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 20 414 patients from a solid-state SPECT MPI international multicentre registry with clinical data and follow-up for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were used to train ML for MACE prediction as a continuous probability (ML score), using 10-fold repeated hold-out testing to separate test from training data. Three ML score thresholds (ML1, ML2, and ML3) were derived by matching the cancellation rates achieved by physician interpretation and two clinical selection rules. Annual MACE rates were compared in patients selected for rest scan cancellation between approaches. Patients selected for rest scan cancellation with ML had lower annualized MACE rates than those selected by physician interpretation or clinical selection rules (ML1 vs. physician interpretation: 1.4 ± 0.1% vs. 2.1 ± 0.1%; ML2 vs. clinical selection: 1.5 ± 0.1% vs. 2.0 ± 0.1%; ML3 vs. stringent clinical selection: 0.6 ± 0.1% vs. 1.7 ± 0.1%, all P < 0.0001) at matched cancellation rates (60 ± 0.7, 64 ± 0.7, and 30 ± 0.6%). Annualized all-cause mortality rates in populations recommended for rest cancellation by physician interpretation, clinical selection approaches were higher (1.3%, 1.2%, and 1.0%, respectively) compared with corresponding ML thresholds (0.6%, 0.6%, and 0.2%). CONCLUSION: ML, using clinical and stress imaging data, can be used to automatically recommend cancellation of rest SPECT MPI scans, while ensuring higher prognostic safety than current clinical approaches.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations64
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207