Implementing Machine Learning in Interventional Cardiology: The Benefits Are Worth the Trouble
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driven by recent innovations and technological progress, the increasing quality and amount of biomedical data coupled with the advances in computing power allowed for much progress in artificial intelligence (AI) approaches for health and biomedical research. In interventional cardiology, the hope is for AI to provide automated analysis and deeper interpretation of data from electrocardiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and electronic health records, among others. Furthermore, high-performance predictive models supporting decision-making hold the potential to improve safety, diagnostic and prognostic prediction in patients undergoing interventional cardiology procedures. These applications include robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention procedures and automatic assessment of coronary stenosis during diagnostic coronary angiograms. Machine learning (ML) has been used in these innovations that have improved the field of interventional cardiology, and more recently, deep Learning (DL) has emerged as one of the most successful branches of ML in many applications. It remains to be seen if DL approaches will have a major impact on current and future practice. DL-based predictive systems also have several limitations, including lack of interpretability and lack of generalizability due to cohort heterogeneity and low sample sizes. There are also challenges for the clinical implementation of these systems, such as ethical limits and data privacy. This review is intended to bring the attention of health practitioners and interventional cardiologists to the broad and helpful applications of ML and DL algorithms to date in the field. Their implementation challenges in daily practice and future applications in the field of interventional cardiology are also discussed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".