Quantitative imaging biomarkers of coronary plaque morphology: insights from EVAPORATE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Residual cardiovascular risk persists despite statin therapy. In REDUCE-IT, icosapent ethyl (IPE) reduced total events, but the mechanisms of benefit are not fully understood. EVAPORATE evaluated the effects of IPE on plaque characteristics by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Given the conclusion that the IPE-treated patients demonstrate that plaque burden decreases has already been published in the primary study analysis, we aimed to demonstrate whether the use of an analytic technique defined and validated in histological terms could extend the primary study in terms of whether such changes could be reliably seen in less time on drug, at the individual (rather than only at the cohort) level, or both, as neither of these were established by the primary study result. Methods and Results EVAPORATE randomized the patients to IPE 4 g/day or placebo. Plaque morphology, including lipid-rich necrotic core (LRNC), fibrous cap thickness, and intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH), was assessed using the ElucidVivo® (Elucid Bioimaging Inc.) on CCTA. The changes in plaque morphology between the treatment groups were analyzed. A neural network to predict treatment assignment was used to infer patient representation that encodes significant morphological changes. Fifty-five patients completed the 18-month visit in EVAPORATE with interpretable images at each of the three time points. The decrease of LRNC between the patients on IPE vs. placebo at 9 months (reduction of 2 mm 3 vs. an increase of 41 mm 3 , p = 0.008), widening at 18 months (6 mm 3 vs. 58 mm 3 increase, p = 0.015) were observed. While not statistically significant on a univariable basis, reductions in wall thickness and increases in cap thickness motivated multivariable modeling on an individual patient basis. The per-patient response assessment was possible using a multivariable model of lipid-rich phenotype at the 9-month follow-up, p < 0.01 (sustained at 18 months), generalizing well to a validation cohort. Conclusion Plaques in the IPE-treated patients acquired more characteristics of stability. Reliable assessment using histologically validated analysis of individual response is possible at 9 months, with sustained stabilization at 18 months, providing a quantitative basis to elucidate drug mechanism and assess individual patient response.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".