Abstract 10637: A Pooled Multi-National Validation Study of a Machine Learning, High-Sensitivity Troponin-Based Multi-Proteomic Model to Predict the Presence of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease as Compared to High Sensitivity Troponin Alone in a Subset of Patients with Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) associated with a two-fold increase in mortality. We aimed to validate the performance of a machine learning based multi-biomarker diagnostic panel to predict obstructive coronary artery disease (oCAD) compared to high-sensitivity cardiac troponin-I (hs-cTnI) alone in a subset of patients with DM. Methods: A previously developed multiple biomarker scoring model was utilized. The pooled cohort included 132 patients at Inova Fairfax Hospital, 69 patients at Massachusetts General Hospital and 46 patients at the University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf with a mixture of acute and lesser acute presentations. Three clinical factors (sex, age, and previous coronary percutaneous intervention) and three biomarkers (hs-cTnI, Adiponectin, and Kidney Injury Molecule-1) were combined. oCAD was defined as >50% coronary obstruction in at least one coronary artery (for the University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf cohort) or >70% coronary obstruction in at least one coronary artery (for the other two cohorts). The multiple biomarker diagnostic panel’s performance to predict oCAD was also compared to hs-cTnI alone. Results: The multiple protein panel had an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70, 0.84, p <0.001) for the presence of oCAD (Figure 1). At optimal cutoff, the score had 79% sensitivity, 57% specificity, and a positive predictive value of 81% for oCAD. The multiple biomarker panel had a diagnostic odds ratio of 4.82 (95% CI 2.68, 8.67, p<0.01). In comparison, in patients without an acute MI, hs-cTnI alone had an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.49, 0.57, p = 0.253) for oCAD (Figure 1). Conclusions: In this multinational pooled cohort, a previously described novel machine learning, multiple protein biomarker panel provided high accuracy to diagnose patients for oCAD in a subset of patients with DM.
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 | 0.037 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".