Machine Learning Algorithms to Distinguish Myocardial Perfusion SPECT Polar Maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) plays an important role in patients with suspected and documented coronary artery disease (CAD). Machine Learning (ML) algorithms have been developed for many medical applications with excellent performance. This study used ML algorithms to discern normal and abnormal gated Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) images. We analyzed one thousand and seven polar maps from a database of patients referred to a university hospital for clinically indicated MPI between January 2016 and December 2018. These studies were reported and evaluated by two different expert readers. The image features were extracted from a specific type of polar map segmentation based on horizontal and vertical slices. A senior expert reading was the comparator (gold standard). We used cross-validation to divide the dataset into training and testing subsets, using data augmentation in the training set, and evaluated 04 ML models. All models had accuracy >90% and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) >0.80 except for Adaptive Boosting (AUC = 0.77), while all precision and sensitivity obtained were >96 and 92%, respectively. Random Forest had the best performance (AUC: 0.853; accuracy: 0,938; precision: 0.968; sensitivity: 0.963). ML algorithms performed very well in image classification. These models were capable of distinguishing polar maps remarkably into normal and abnormal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".