Predicting MACE from [82Rb] PET: Can AI outperformmore traditional quantitative assessment of themyocardial perfusion ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Assessing the individual risk of Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) is of major importance as cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of death worldwide. Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI) parameters such as stress Myocardial Blood Flow (sMBF) or Myocardial Flow Reserve (MFR) constitutes the gold standard for prognosis assessment. We propose a systematic investigation of the value of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to leverage [82Rb] Silicon PhotoMultiplier (SiPM) PET MPI for MACE prediction. We establish a general pipeline for AI model validation to assess and compare the performance of global (i.e. average of the entire MPI signal), regional (17 segments), radiomics and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models leveraging various MPI signals on a dataset of 234 patients. Results showed that all regional AI models significantly outperformed the global model (p < 0.001), where the best AUC of 73.9% (CI: 72.5-75.3) was obtained with a CNN model. A regional AI model based on MBF averages from 17 segments fed to a Logistic Regression (LR) constituted an excellent trade-off between model simplicity and performance, achieving an AUC of 73.4% (CI: 72.3-74.7). A radiomics model based on intensity features revealed that the global average was the least important feature when compared to other aggregations of the MPI signal over the myocardium. We conclude that AI models can allow better personalized prognosis assessment for MACE.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".