MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 10580: Machine Learning-Assisted Echocardiographic Identification of Children at High Risk for Treatment-Related Cardiomyopathy: A Proof-of-Concept Study

2022· article· en· W4380793675 on OpenAlexaff
Christina J. Yang, Zih-Hua Chen, Lahari Gorantla, Sanika A. Joshi, Nicolas J Longhi, Jamie O. Yang, Saro H. Armenian, Aarti Bhat, William L. Border, Sujatha Buddhe, Kasey J. Leger, Wendy M. Leisenring, Lillian R. Meacham, Paul C. Nathan, Ritu Sachdeva, Karim Thomas Sadak, Eric J. Chow, Patrick M. Boyle, Lindsay A. Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParasternal lineHeart failureArtificial intelligenceProof of conceptMachine learningBinary classificationIdentification (biology)Internal medicineCardiologyComputer scienceSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Childhood cancer survivors require life-long surveillance for treatment-related cardiomyopathy/heart failure (CHF). Ultimately, we aim to use machine learning to aid in echocardiographic discrimination of survivors more likely to develop future CHF. For this feasibility pilot, we built two proof-of-concept deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) tasked with binary classification of present/future CHF versus no CHF with the aim of assessing optimal data input format and model architecture. Methods: From a robust multi-institutional surveillance echo dataset, we selected pilot data comprising 171 parasternal short axis echo clips, 52 from 5 CHF+ (present and future CHF) and 119 from 21 CHF- patients. We built two DCNN models differing in frame selection for input data (Fig. 1), both tasked with binary classification of CHF+ vs. CHF-. We used holdout subsets in a 10-fold cross-validation framework to test model performance and Student’s t test (paired) to compare model performance. Results: Classification performance was similar, with mean AUROC values of 0.59 ± 0.09 and 0.53 ± 0.11 (p=0.14) for the models trained on Type I and Type II montages, respectively (Fig. 2). Conclusions: The DCNN framework is feasible for a model tasked with classifying CHF status, and we are optimistic that a similar model can be trained with pre-CHF diagnosis (case) vs control patient images to facilitate machine learning-assisted identification of childhood cancer survivors more likely to develop CHF in the future.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207