MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389242864 · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2023-323296

Incremental value of machine learning for risk prediction in tetralogy of Fallot

2023· article· en· W4389242864 on OpenAlexafffund
Ayako Ishikita, Chris McIntosh, S. Lucy Roche, David J. Barron, Erwin Oechslin, Lee Benson, Krishnakumar Nair, Myunghyun M. Lee, Michael Gritti, Kate Hanneman, Gauri Rani Karur, Rachel M. Wald

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMaceTetralogy of FallotInternal medicineCardiologyVentricular tachycardiaHeart failureHeart diseaseMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Machine learning (ML) can facilitate prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in repaired tetralogy of Fallot (rTOF). We sought to determine the incremental value of ML above expert clinical judgement for risk prediction in rTOF. METHODS: Adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) clinicians (≥10 years of experience) participated (one cardiac surgeon and four cardiologists (two paediatric and two adult cardiology trained) with expertise in heart failure (HF), electrophysiology, imaging and intervention). Clinicians identified 10 high-yield variables for 5-year MACE prediction (defined as a composite of mortality, resuscitated sudden death, sustained ventricular tachycardia and HF). Risk for MACE (low, moderate or high) was assigned by clinicians blinded to outcome for adults with rTOF identified from an institutional database (n=25 patient reviews conducted by five independent observers). A validated ML model identified 10 variables for risk prediction in the same population. RESULTS: Prediction by ML was similar to the aggregate score of all experts (area under the curve (AUC) 0.85 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.96) vs 0.92 (0.72 to 0.98), p=0.315). Experts with ≥20 years of experience had superior discriminative capacity compared with <20 years (AUC 0.98 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.99) vs 0.80 (0.56 to 0.93), p=0.027). In those with <20 years of experience, ML provided incremental value such that the combined (clinical+ML) AUC approached ≥20 years (AUC 0.85 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95), p=0.055). CONCLUSIONS: Robust prediction of 5-year MACE in rTOF was achieved using either ML or a multidisciplinary team of ACHD experts. Risk prediction of some clinicians was enhanced by incorporation of ML suggesting that there may be incremental value for ML in select circumstances.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207