A Pharmaceutical Paradigm for Cardiovascular Composite Risk Assessment Using Novel Radiogenomics Risk Predictors in Precision Explainable Artificial Intelligence Framework: Clinical Trial Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is challenging to diagnose and treat since symptoms appear late during the progression of atherosclerosis. Conventional risk factors alone are not always sufficient to properly categorize at-risk patients, and clinical risk scores are inadequate in predicting cardiac events. Integrating genomic-based biomarkers (GBBM) found in plasma/serum samples with novel non-invasive radiomics-based biomarkers (RBBM) such as plaque area, plaque burden, and maximum plaque height can improve composite CVD risk prediction in the pharmaceutical paradigm. These biomarkers consider several pathways involved in the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis disease leading to CVD. Objective: This review proposes two hypotheses: (i) The composite biomarkers are strongly correlated and can be used to detect the severity of CVD/Stroke precisely, and (ii) an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)-based composite risk CVD/Stroke model with survival analysis using deep learning (DL) can predict in preventive, precision, and personalized (aiP3) framework benefiting the pharmaceutical paradigm. Method: The PRISMA search technique resulted in 214 studies assessing composite biomarkers using radiogenomics for CVD/Stroke. The study presents a XAI model using AtheroEdgeTM 4.0 to determine the risk of CVD/Stroke in the pharmaceutical framework using the radiogenomics biomarkers. Conclusions: Our observations suggest that the composite CVD risk biomarkers using radiogenomics provide a new dimension to CVD/Stroke risk assessment. The proposed review suggests a unique, unbiased, and XAI model based on AtheroEdgeTM 4.0 that can predict the composite risk of CVD/Stroke using radiogenomics in the pharmaceutical paradigm.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".