Advancements in Artificial Intelligence for Precision Diagnosis and Treatment of Myocardial Infarction: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Trials and Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is still a serious global health issue that has a substantial impact on death and illness rates. The goal of primary prevention strategies is to lower the risk of developing CAD. Nevertheless, current methods usually rely on simple risk assessment instruments that might overlook significant individual risk factors. This limitation highlights the need for innovative methods that can accurately assess cardiovascular risk and offer personalized preventive care. Recent advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) have opened up interesting new avenues for optimizing primary preventive efforts for CAD and improving risk prediction models. By leveraging large-scale databases and advanced computational techniques, AI has the potential to fundamentally alter how cardiovascular risk is evaluated and managed. This review looks at current randomized controlled studies and clinical trials that explore the application of AI and machine learning to improve primary preventive measures for CAD. The emphasis is on their ability to recognize and include a range of risk elements in sophisticated risk assessment models.
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 | 0.023 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".