AI-derived epicardial fat measurements improve cardiovascular risk prediction from myocardial perfusion imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) volume and attenuation are associated with cardiovascular risk, but manual annotation is time-consuming. We evaluated whether automated deep learning-based EAT measurements from ungated computed tomography (CT) are associated with death or myocardial infarction (MI). We included 8781 patients from 4 sites without known coronary artery disease who underwent hybrid myocardial perfusion imaging. Of those, 500 patients from one site were used for model training and validation, with the remaining patients held out for testing (n = 3511 internal testing, n = 4770 external testing). We modified an existing deep learning model to first identify the cardiac silhouette, then automatically segment EAT based on attenuation thresholds. Deep learning EAT measurements were obtained in <2 s compared to 15 min for expert annotations. There was excellent agreement between EAT attenuation (Spearman correlation 0.90 internal, 0.82 external) and volume (Spearman correlation 0.90 internal, 0.91 external) by deep learning and expert segmentation in all 3 sites (Spearman correlation 0.90-0.98). During median follow-up of 2.7 years (IQR 1.6-4.9), 565 patients experienced death or MI. Elevated EAT volume and attenuation were independently associated with an increased risk of death or MI after adjustment for relevant confounders. Deep learning can automatically measure EAT volume and attenuation from low-dose, ungated CT with excellent correlation with expert annotations, but in a fraction of the time. EAT measurements offer additional prognostic insights within the context of hybrid perfusion imaging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".