Identification and Evaluation of Blood-Based Biomarkers for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Blood-based biomarkers for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) have been studied individually; however, we considered a panel of proteins to investigate AAA prognosis and its potential to improve predictive accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: = 452), we conducted a prognostic study to develop a model that accurately predicts AAA outcomes using clinical features and circulating biomarker levels. Serum concentrations of 9 biomarkers were measured at baseline, and the cohort was followed for 2 years. The primary outcome was major adverse aortic event (MAAE; composite of rapid AAA expansion [>0.5 cm/6 months or >1 cm/12 months], AAA intervention, or AAA rupture). Using 10-fold cross-validation, we trained a random forest model to predict 2 year MAAE using (1) clinical characteristics, (2) biomarkers, and (3) clinical characteristics and biomarkers. RESULTS: Two-year MAAE occurred in 114 (25%) patients. Two proteins were significantly elevated in patients with AAA compared with those without AAA (angiopoietin-2 and aggrecan), composing the protein panel. For predicting 2 year MAAE, our random forest model achieved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.74 using clinical features alone, and the addition of the 2-protein panel improved performance to AUROC 0.86. CONCLUSIONS: Using a combination of clinical/biomarker data, we developed a model that accurately predicts 2 year MAAE.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".