Unsupervised learning to characterize patients with known coronary artery disease undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD) comprise a heterogenous population with varied clinical and imaging characteristics. Unsupervised machine learning can identify new risk phenotypes in an unbiased fashion. We use cluster analysis to risk-stratify patients with known CAD undergoing single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). METHODS: From 37,298 patients in the REFINE SPECT registry, we identified 9221 patients with known coronary artery disease. Unsupervised machine learning was performed using clinical (23), acquisition (17), and image analysis (24) parameters from 4774 patients (internal cohort) and validated with 4447 patients (external cohort). Risk stratification for all-cause mortality was compared to stress total perfusion deficit (< 5%, 5-10%, ≥10%). RESULTS: Three clusters were identified, with patients in Cluster 3 having a higher body mass index, more diabetes mellitus and hypertension, and less likely to be male, have dyslipidemia, or undergo exercise stress imaging (p < 0.001 for all). In the external cohort, during median follow-up of 2.6 [0.14, 3.3] years, all-cause mortality occurred in 312 patients (7%). Cluster analysis provided better risk stratification for all-cause mortality (Cluster 3: hazard ratio (HR) 5.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.0, 8.6, p < 0.001; Cluster 2: HR 3.3, 95% CI 2.5, 4.5, p < 0.001; Cluster 1, reference) compared to stress total perfusion deficit (≥10%: HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5, 2.5 p < 0.001; < 5%: reference). CONCLUSIONS: Our unsupervised cluster analysis in patients with known CAD undergoing SPECT MPI identified three distinct phenotypic clusters and predicted all-cause mortality better than ischemia alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".