MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306291311 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.300

Unsupervised machine learning improves risk stratification of patients with visual normal SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging assessments

2022· article· en· W4306291311 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan Bednarski, Michelle C. Williams, Konrad Pieszko, R J H Miller, Cathleen Huang, Jacek Kwieciński, T Sharir, Marcelo F. Di Carli, Mathews B. Fish, Terrence D. Ruddy, T Hasuer, Elliott Miller, Wanda Acampa, David S. Berman, Piotr J. Slomka

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaceMyocardial perfusion imagingHazard ratioSingle-photon emission computed tomographyUnsupervised learningArtificial intelligenceProportional hazards modelConfidence intervalCluster analysisSilhouetteRisk stratificationPerfusionInternal medicineCardiologyMyocardial infarctionComputer sciencePercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Unsupervised machine learning has the potential to identify new cardiovascular phenotypes and more accurately assess individual risk in an unbiased fashion. Purpose We aimed to use unsupervised learning to identify, analyze, and risk-stratify subgroups of patients with normal perfusion by visual interpretation on single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). Methods We included consecutive patients with visual normal clinical assessment (summed stress score of 0) from the multicenter (9 sites), REFINE SPECT registry. We considered 23 clinical, 17 image-acquisition, and 26 imaging variables. Optimal dimensionality reduction (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection), clustering (Gaussian Mixture Model), and number of clusters were selected to maximize the silhouette coefficient (how similar a patient is to those in their own cluster compared to other clusters). Risk stratification for all-cause mortality (ACM) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was assessed within these clusters and compared to risk stratification by quantitative ischemia (<5%, 5–10%, >10%) using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox Proportional-Hazards analysis. Results In total, 17,527 (of 30,351) patients in the registry had visually normal perfusion, 49.7% female, median age of 64 [55, 72] years. There were 1,138 ACM events and 2,091 MACE events with a median follow-up of 4.1 [2.9, 5.7] years. Unsupervised learning provided better risk stratification for both ACM and MACE compared to quantitative ischemia (Figure). Notably, the high-risk cluster by unsupervised learning had a hazard ratio (HR) of 9.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7–11.7) compared to 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1–1.9) for quantitative ischemia >10%. The high-risk cluster had proportionally more women (45% [low-risk], 51% [medium-risk], 57% [high-risk], all p<0.001), higher body mass indices (26.9, 27.4, 29.6, all p<0.001), prevalence of diabetes (17%, 22%, 33%, all p<0.001), and abnormal rest ECGs (30%, 43%, 64%, p<0.001); with lower rates of family history of coronary artery disease (40%, 33%, 24%, p<0.001). Patients in the low-risk cluster were more likely to undergo exercise stress (100%, 38%, 0%, all p<0.001), had lower rest peak systolic blood pressure (130, 131, 140 mmHg, all p<0.001), and higher stress peak systolic blood pressure (164, 150, 131 mmHg, all p<0.001). Patients in the high-risk cluster had higher left ventricular mass (129, 135.45, 143.9 g, all p<0.001) and stress volume (57, 59, 66 ml, all p<0.001). Conclusion Unsupervised learning identified new phenotypic clusters for SPECT MPI patients with visual normal assessments which provided improved risk stratification for ACM and MACE compared to SPECT ischemia. Such individualized risk assessment may allow better targeted management of patients with visually normal perfusion. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01HL089765. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207