Artificial intelligence-enabled retinal vasculometry for prediction of circulatory mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims We examine whether inclusion of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled retinal vasculometry (RV) improves existing risk algorithms for incident stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and circulatory mortality. Methods AI-enabled retinal vessel image analysis processed images from 88 052 UK Biobank (UKB) participants (aged 40–69 years at image capture) and 7411 European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk participants (aged 48–92). Retinal arteriolar and venular width, tortuosity and area were extracted. Prediction models were developed in UKB using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression for circulatory mortality, incident stroke and MI, and externally validated in EPIC-Norfolk. Model performance was assessed using optimism adjusted calibration, C-statistics and R 2 statistics. Performance of Framingham risk scores (FRS) for incident stroke and incident MI, with addition of RV to FRS, were compared with a simpler model based on RV, age, smoking status and medical history (antihypertensive/cholesterol lowering medication, diabetes, prevalent stroke/MI). Results UKB prognostic models were developed on 65 144 participants (mean age 56.8; median follow-up 7.7 years) and validated in 5862 EPIC-Norfolk participants (67.6, 9.1 years, respectively). Prediction models for circulatory mortality in men and women had optimism adjusted C-statistics and R 2 statistics between 0.75–0.77 and 0.33–0.44, respectively. For incident stroke and MI, addition of RV to FRS did not improve model performance in either cohort. However, the simpler RV model performed equally or better than FRS. Conclusion RV offers an alternative predictive biomarker to traditional risk-scores for vascular health, without the need for blood sampling or blood pressure measurement. Further work is needed to examine RV in population screening to triage individuals at high-risk.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".