A machine learning–based clinical decision support algorithm for reducing unnecessary coronary angiograms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Conventional clinical risk scores and diagnostic algorithms are proving to be suboptimal in the prediction of obstructive coronary artery disease, contributing to the low diagnostic yield of invasive angiography. Machine learning could help better predict which patients would benefit from invasive angiography vs other noninvasive diagnostic modalities. Objective To reduce patient risk and cost to the healthcare system by improving the diagnostic yield of invasive coronary angiography through optimized outpatient selection. Methods Retrospective analysis of 12 years of referral data from a provincial cardiac registry, including all patients referred for invasive angiography of more than 1.4 million individuals in Ontario, Canada. Stable outpatients undergoing coronary angiography during the study period were included in the analysis. The training set (80% random sample, n=23,750) was used to develop 8 prediction models in Python using grid-search cross-validation. The test set (20% random sample, n=5938), evaluated the discrimination performance of each model. Results The machine-learning model achieved a substantially better performance (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.81) than existing models for predicting obstructive coronary artery disease in patients referred for invasive angiography. It significantly outperformed both the reference model and current clinical practice with a net reclassification index of 27.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: [24.9%–30.8%], P value <.01) and 44.7% (95% CI: [42.4%–47.0%], P value <.01), respectively. Conclusion This prediction model, when coupled with a point-of-care, online decision support tool to be used by referring physicians, could improve the diagnostic yield of invasive coronary angiography in stable, elective outpatients, thus improving patient safety and reducing healthcare costs.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".