Simplified Approach to Predicting Obstructive Coronary Disease With Integration of Coronary Calcium: Development and External Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Diamond‐Forrester model was used extensively to predict obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) but overestimates probability in current populations. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is a useful marker of CAD, which is not routinely integrated with other features. We derived simple likelihood tables, integrating CAC with age, sex, and cardiac chest pain to predict obstructive CAD. Methods and Results The training population included patients from 3 multinational sites (n=2055), with 2 sites for external testing (n=3321). We determined associations between age, sex, cardiac chest pain, and CAC with the presence of obstructive CAD, defined as any stenosis ≥50% on coronary computed tomography angiography. Prediction performance was assessed using area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and compared with the CAD Consortium models with and without CAC, which require detailed calculations, and the updated Diamond‐Forrester model. In external testing, the proposed likelihood tables had higher AUC (0.875 [95% CI, 0.862–0.889]) than the CAD Consortium clinical+CAC score (AUC, 0.868 [95% CI, 0.855–0.881]; P =0.030) and the updated Diamond‐Forrester model (AUC, 0.679 [95% CI, 0.658–0.699]; P <0.001). The calibration for the likelihood tables was better than the CAD Consortium model (Brier score, 0.116 versus 0.121; P =0.005). Conclusions We have developed and externally validated simple likelihood tables to integrate CAC with age, sex, and cardiac chest pain, demonstrating improved prediction performance compared with other risk models. Our tool affords physicians with the opportunity to rapidly and easily integrate a small number of important features to estimate a patient's likelihood of obstructive CAD as an aid to clinical management.
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 | 0.023 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".