Relationship of age, atherosclerosis and angiographic stenosis using artificial intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study evaluates the relationship of coronary stenosis, atherosclerotic plaque characteristics (APCs) and age using artificial intelligence enabled quantitative coronary computed tomographic angiography (AI-QCT). METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of data from 303 subjects enrolled in the CREDENCE (Computed TomogRaphic Evaluation of Atherosclerotic Determinants of Myocardial IsChEmia) trial who were referred for invasive coronary angiography and subsequently underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA). In this study, a blinded core laboratory analysing quantitative coronary angiography images classified lesions as obstructive (≥50%) or non-obstructive (<50%) while AI software quantified APCs including plaque volume (PV), low-density non-calcified plaque (LD-NCP), non-calcified plaque (NCP), calcified plaque (CP), lesion length on a per-patient and per-lesion basis based on CCTA imaging. Plaque measurements were normalised for vessel volume and reported as % percent atheroma volume (%PAV) for all relevant plaque components. Data were subsequently stratified by age <65 and ≥65 years. RESULTS: ; p<0.004) while younger patients had more %PAV (LD-NCP) (1.5% vs 0.7%; p<0.038). Younger patients had more PV, LD-NCP, NCP and lesion lengths in obstructive compared with non-obstructive lesions. There were no differences observed between lesion types in older patients. CONCLUSION: AI-QCT identifies a unique APC signature that differs by age and degree of stenosis and provides a foundation for AI-guided age-based approaches to atherosclerosis identification, prevention and treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".