MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

504 Personalizing cardiovascular risk prediction for SLE patients

2022· article· en· W4313532986 on OpenAlexaff
May Y. Choi, Brittany Weber, Hongshu Guan, Kazuki Yoshida, Daniel Li, Jack Eldrodt, Emma Stevens, Austin Cai, Brendan M. Everett, Karen H. Costenbader

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAtherosclerosis and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineMaceStroke (engine)DiseaseCohortMedical recordPopulationCardiologyConventional PCI

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), including myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, is increased in SLE patients and is underestimated by current prediction algorithms designed for the general population including the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association now considers systemic inflammatory diseases such as SLE as risk enhancers for CVD. The purpose of this study was to develop an SLE-specific prediction tool to provide a more accurate estimate of CVD risk by including both traditional and SLE-related CVD risk factors. Methods We included SLE patients enrolled in the Brigham and Women’s Hospital SLE Cohort and collected one-year baseline data on traditional CVD risk factors, demographic and clinical features from the electronic medical record at cohort enrollment. Disease activity was rated using a modified physician global assessment (PGA) tool and SLE-related variables including autoantibodies, complement levels, and SLE manifestations were also collected. All subjects were required to have one or more visits for SLE during the baseline period. A up to ten-year follow-up period for CVD events began day +1 at end of baseline period (index date). The primary outcome was first major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as composite of first myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or cardiac death, in the follow-up period. These were identified by ICD-9/10 codes and adjudicated by medical record review by board-certified cardiologists as either definite or probable events (not meeting all the criteria for MI or stroke definition). The secondary outcome was boarded to include first event of: carotid artery occlusion or stenosis, transient ischaemic attack, atrial fibrillation/flutter, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, or angina pectoris. We excluded subjects with CVD events prior to the index date. Three Cox regression risk prediction models that categorized patients into low risk <7.5% risk, moderate risk 7.5-20%, and >20% risk over 10 years were derived: 1) primary outcome with definite/probable events, 2) combined model 1 and secondary outcomes, and 3) primary outcome with definite events only. We performed least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression for variable selection and required one of the candidate predictors to be the 10-year ASCVD risk score. We assessed model performance using integrated time-dependent area under the curve, Harrell’s C statistic, optimism corrected C- statistic, integrated discrimination (IDI), and net reclassification index (NRI) using bootstrap resampling. Results We included 1243 patients; 93.0% female and mean age of 41.6 (SD 13.3) years. There were 90 definite and probable MACEs (46 MIs, 36 strokes, and 19 cardiac deaths) and 211 secondary events over the follow-up period. The variables selected included: ASCVD risk score, disease activity (PGA at most recent baseline visit), disease duration, creatinine level, presence of anti-dsDNA, anti-RNP, lupus anticoagulant, anti-Ro60/SSA, and low C4 (table 1). Models 1 (primary outcomes with definite and probable events) and 3 (primary outcomes with definite events only) performed similarly and outperformed model 2 (combination of model 1 and secondary events) (table 2). Model performance improved in comparing risk predicted by ASCVD risk score alone vs. ASCVD risk score combined with selected SLE variables by LASSO regression for models 1 and 2, particularly at year 1. For these models, the number of SLE patients who were classified as high risk (>20%) more than doubled when selected SLE variables were added to the ASCVD model compared to the ASCVD model alone (table 3). The ten-year IDI and NRI were significant in the improvement direction. Conclusion Our novel SLE-specific cardiovascular risk prediction scores enhanced the performance of the traditional ASCVD risk algorithm and identified a greater number of SLE patients (at least two-fold) at high-risk for CVD events over 10 years. These models will need to be validated in a larger and more diverse population of SLE patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtherosclerosis and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207