MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178568195 · doi:10.1093/cvr/cvab236

Determining a minimum set of variables for machine learning cardiovascular event prediction: results from REFINE SPECT registry

2021· article· en· W3178568195 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Ríos, Robert J.H. Miller, Lien-Hsin Hu, Yuka Otaki, Ananya Singh, Márcio A. Diniz, Tali Sharir, 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. DiCarli, Serge Van Kriekinge, Paul Kavanagh, Tejas Parekh, Joanna X. Liang, Damini Dey, Daniel S. Berman, Piotr J. Slomka

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMyocardial perfusion imagingArtificial intelligenceReceiver operating characteristicSingle-photon emission computed tomographyMachine learningComputer sciencePerfusion scanningMaceMedicineNuclear medicinePerfusionStatisticsMathematicsRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Optimal risk stratification with machine learning (ML) from myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) includes both clinical and imaging data. While most imaging variables can be derived automatically, clinical variables require manual collection, which is time-consuming and prone to error. We determined the fewest manually input and imaging variables required to maintain the prognostic accuracy for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing a single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) MPI. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 20 414 patients from the multicentre REFINE SPECT registry and 2984 from the University of Calgary for training and external testing of the ML models, respectively. ML models were trained using all variables (ML-All) and all image-derived variables (including age and sex, ML-Image). Next, ML models were sequentially trained by incrementally adding manually input and imaging variables to baseline ML models based on their importance ranking. The fewest variables were determined as the ML models (ML-Reduced, ML-Minimum, and ML-Image-Reduced) that achieved comparable prognostic performance to ML-All and ML-Image. Prognostic accuracy of the ML models was compared with visual diagnosis, stress total perfusion deficit (TPD), and traditional multivariable models using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). ML-Minimum (AUC 0.798) obtained comparable prognostic accuracy to ML-All (AUC 0.799, P = 0.19) by including 12 of 40 manually input variables and 11 of 58 imaging variables. ML-Reduced achieved comparable accuracy (AUC 0.796) with a reduced set of manually input variables and all imaging variables. In external validation, the ML models also obtained comparable or higher prognostic accuracy than traditional multivariable models. CONCLUSION: Reduced ML models, including a minimum set of manually collected or imaging variables, achieved slightly lower accuracy compared to a full ML model but outperformed standard interpretation methods and risk models. ML models with fewer collected variables may be more practical for clinical implementation.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiovascular ResearchSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207