MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The incremental value of exercise ECG to myocardial perfusion SPECT for prediction of cardiac events

2022· article· en· W4306253289 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Morten Kraen, Shahnaz Akil, B Heden, Jurriën M. ten Berg, Ellen Ostenfeld, Marcus Carlsson, H. Arheden, Henrik Engblom

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineConventional PCIMyocardial infarctionAnginaElectrocardiographyCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyUnstable anginaEjection fractionClinical endpointHeart failureClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Both myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) and exercise ECG (Ex-ECG) are known to carry prognostic information in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). However, it is not fully understood if combining MPS and Ex-ECG results improves risk prediction. Current guidelines no longer recommend Ex-ECG for diagnostic evaluation of CCS, but adding Ex-ECG results to MPS could be of incremental prognostic importance. Purpose The study aimed to assess the incremental prognostic value of Ex-ECG to MPS results in patients with CCS. Methods A single-center study of 908 consecutive patients with CCS (age 63±9 years, 49% male) who underwent a MPS with Ex-ECG. Subjects were followed for five years. The clinical endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death (CV), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), unstable angina and unplanned PCI. National registry data and electronic medical charts were used for end point allocation. Results Combining the findings of MPS and Ex-ECG resulted in concordant evidence of ischemia in 72 patients (8%) or absence of ischemia in 634 patients (70%). Dis-concordant results were found in 202 patients (22%; MPS−/Ex-ECG+, n=126 and MPS+/Ex-ECG−, n=76). During follow-up 95 composite cardiac events occurred (CV deaths n=6, AMI n=27, unstable angina n=34 and unplanned PCI n=28). Kaplan-Meier curves display an increased risk of cardiac events in patients with any combination of abnormal stress test results (Figure 1). In a multivariable regression model (adjusting for age, sex, smoking, known IHD, diabetes, dyslipidaemia and exercise capacity) MPS was the strongest predictor of cardiac events regardless of Ex-ECG results (MPS+/Ex-ECG−, Hazard ratio (HR) = 3.0, p=0.001 or MPS+/Ex-ECG+, HR=4.0, p<0.001). However, an abnormal Ex-ECG almost doubled the risk of event in subjects with a normal MPS (MPS−/Ex-ECG+, HR=1.9, p=0.04). Conclusions Combining the results from MPS and Ex-ECG in patients with chronic coronary syndrome lead to an improved prediction of future cardiac events. Even though MPS is the stronger predictor, there is an incremental prognostic value of adding data from Ex-ECG to MPS, especially in patients with normal MPS findings. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, Region of Scania

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→