A machine learning algorithm for peripheral artery disease prognosis using biomarker data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral artery disease (PAD) biomarkers have been studied in isolation; however, an algorithm that considers a protein panel to inform PAD prognosis may improve predictive accuracy. Biomarker-based prediction models were developed and evaluated using a model development (n = 270) and prospective validation cohort (n = 277). Plasma concentrations of 37 proteins were measured at baseline and the patients were followed for 2 years. The primary outcome was 2-year major adverse limb event (MALE; composite of vascular intervention or major amputation). Of the 37 proteins tested, 6 were differentially expressed in patients with vs. without PAD (ADAMTS13, ICAM-1, ANGPTL3, Alpha 1-microglobulin, GDF15, and endostatin). Using 10-fold cross-validation, we developed a random forest machine learning model that accurately predicts 2-year MALE in a prospective validation cohort of PAD patients using a 6-protein panel (AUROC 0.84). This algorithm can support PAD risk stratification, informing clinical decisions on further vascular evaluation and 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".