MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 12563: Creation of an Artificial Intelligence Model For Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Late After Tetralogy of Fallot Repair

2022· article· en· W4380794476 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ayako Ishikita, Chris McIntosh, Myunghyun M. Lee, Stavroula Raptis, Tiffany W. Liang, Kate Hanneman, Gauri Rani Karur, S. Lucy Roche, David J. Barron, Edward Hickey, Rachel M. Wald

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaceMedicineTetralogy of FallotRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineHeart failureCardiologyHeart diseaseMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction and Hypothesis: Despite successful tetralogy of Fallot repair (rTOF) in childhood, advancing age is associated with escalating risk of morbidity and mortality. Published risk scores for prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) typically incorporate invasive and/or specialized measures. We hypothesized that an artificial intelligence (AI) model using an array of parameters available in routine clinical practice could successfully predict MACE in rTOF. Methods: Adults with rTOF were identified using institutional databases (the prospective observational Comprehensive Outcomes Registry Late After Tetralogy of Fallot Repair [CORRELATE] and the retrospective Toronto Outcomes Registry of Congenital Heart disease [TORCH]). A random forest AI model for prediction of MACE was trained on CORRELATE using repeated random sub-sampling validation. External validation was achieved using non-overlapping retrospective data from TORCH. The MACE composite outcome included all-cause mortality, resuscitated sudden death, sustained ventricular tachycardia (>30 seconds) or heart failure (hospital admission>24 hours). Results: In total, 804 subjects were studied and MACE was observed in 73 (9%) subjects. Patients were either included in the training dataset (n=312, 59% male, median age 32 years [IQR 23-43], median follow-up 6 years [IQR 4-7]) or the testing dataset (n=492, 58% male, median age 26 years [IQR 20-37], median follow up 10 years [IQR 6-10]). Variables incorporated into the AI model are shown (Figure 1). Predictive capacity of the AI models were similar in testing (AUC 0.81, CI 0.75-0.86) and training (AUC 0.88, CI 0.71-0.99) datasets with excellent receiver operating characteristics (Figure 1). Conclusions: An AI model based on routinely used and widely available clinical and imaging variables could successfully predict MACE in rTOF. Further study is required to determine the value of AI for risk management in rTOF.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→