Machine learning for abdominal aortic calcification assessment from bone density machine-derived lateral spine images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lateral spine images for vertebral fracture assessment can be easily obtained on modern bone density machines. Abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) can be scored on these images by trained imaging specialists to assess cardiovascular disease risk. However, this process is laborious and requires careful training. METHODS: Training and testing of model performance of the convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithm for automated AAC-24 scoring utilised 5012 lateral spine images (2 manufacturers, 4 models of bone density machines), with trained imaging specialist AAC scores. Validation occurred in a registry-based cohort study of 8565 older men and women with images captured as part of routine clinical practice for fracture risk assessment. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between machine-learning AAC (ML-AAC-24) scores with future incident Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) that including death, hospitalised acute myocardial infarction or ischemic cerebrovascular disease ascertained from linked healthcare data. FINDINGS: The average intraclass correlation coefficient between imaging specialist and ML-AAC-24 scores for 5012 images was 0.84 (95% CI 0.83, 0.84) with classification accuracy of 80% for established AAC groups. During a mean follow-up 4 years in the registry-based cohort, MACE outcomes were reported in 1177 people (13.7%). With increasing ML-AAC-24 scores there was an increasing proportion of people with MACE (low 7.9%, moderate 14.5%, high 21.2%), as well as individual MACE components (all p-trend <0.001). After multivariable adjustment, moderate and high ML-AAC-24 groups remained significantly associated with MACE (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.31-1.80 & HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.75-2.42, respectively), compared to those with low ML-AAC-24. INTERPRETATION: The ML-AAC-24 scores had substantial levels of agreement with trained imaging specialists, and was associated with a substantial gradient of risk for cardiovascular events in a real-world setting. This approach could be readily implemented into these clinical settings to improve identification of people at high CVD risk. FUNDING: The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Ideas grant and the Rady Innovation Fund, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".