MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311281764 · doi:10.1007/s00330-022-09323-z

Prediction of incident cardiovascular events using machine learning and CMR radiomics

2022· article· en· W4311281764 on OpenAlexaff
Esmeralda Ruiz Pujadas, Zahra Raisi‐Estabragh, Liliána Szabó, Celeste McCracken, Cristian Izquierdo Morcillo, Víctor M. Campello, Carlos Martín-Isla, Angélica Atehortúa, Hajnalka Vágó, Béla Merkely, Pál Maurovich‐Horvat, Nicholas C. Harvey, Stefan Neubauer, Steffen E. Petersen, Karim Lekadir

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Radiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversitat de BarcelonaBritish Heart FoundationMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyVentricleInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationNeuroradiologyMagnetic resonance imagingHeart failureMyocardial infarctionStroke (engine)RadiologyNeurology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of the feasibility of using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) radiomics in the prediction of incident atrial fibrillation (AF), heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke using machine learning techniques. METHODS: We identified participants from the UK Biobank who experienced incident AF, HF, MI, or stroke during the continuous longitudinal follow-up. The CMR indices and the vascular risk factors (VRFs) as well as the CMR images were obtained for each participant. Three-segmented regions of interest (ROIs) were computed: right ventricle cavity, left ventricle (LV) cavity, and LV myocardium in end-systole and end-diastole phases. Radiomics features were extracted from the 3D volumes of the ROIs. Seven integrative models were built for each incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) as an outcome. Each model was built with VRF, CMR indices, and radiomics features and a combination of them. Support vector machine was used for classification. To assess the model performance, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were reported. RESULTS: AF prediction model using the VRF+CMR+Rad model (accuracy: 0.71, AUC 0.76) obtained the best result. However, the AUC was similar to the VRF+Rad model. HF showed the most significant improvement with the inclusion of CMR metrics (VRF+CMR+Rad: 0.79, AUC 0.84). Moreover, adding only the radiomics features to the VRF reached an almost similarly good performance (VRF+Rad: accuracy 0.77, AUC 0.83). Prediction models looking into incident MI and stroke reached slightly smaller improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Radiomics features may provide incremental predictive value over VRF and CMR indices in the prediction of incident CVDs. KEY POINTS: • Prediction of incident atrial fibrillation, heart failure, stroke, and myocardial infarction using machine learning techniques. • CMR radiomics, vascular risk factors, and standard CMR indices will be considered in the machine learning models. • The experiments show that radiomics features can provide incremental predictive value over VRF and CMR indices in the prediction of incident cardiovascular diseases.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations44
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean RadiologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207