Cardiovascular Disease Risk Stratification Using Hybrid Deep Learning Paradigm: First of Its Kind on Canadian Trial Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has traditionally been predicted via the assessment of carotid plaques. In the proposed study, AtheroEdge™ 3.0HDL (AtheroPoint™, Roseville, CA, USA) was designed to demonstrate how well the features obtained from carotid plaques determine the risk of CVD. We hypothesize that hybrid deep learning (HDL) will outperform unidirectional deep learning, bidirectional deep learning, and machine learning (ML) paradigms. Methodology: 500 people who had undergone targeted carotid B-mode ultrasonography and coronary angiography were included in the proposed study. ML feature selection was carried out using three different methods, namely principal component analysis (PCA) pooling, the chi-square test (CST), and the random forest regression (RFR) test. The unidirectional and bidirectional deep learning models were trained, and then six types of novel HDL-based models were designed for CVD risk stratification. The AtheroEdge™ 3.0HDL was scientifically validated using seen and unseen datasets while the reliability and statistical tests were conducted using CST along with p-value significance. The performance of AtheroEdge™ 3.0HDL was evaluated by measuring the p-value and area-under-the-curve for both seen and unseen data. Results: The HDL system showed an improvement of 30.20% (0.954 vs. 0.702) over the ML system using the seen datasets. The ML feature extraction analysis showed 70% of common features among all three methods. The generalization of AtheroEdge™ 3.0HDL showed less than 1% (p-value < 0.001) difference between seen and unseen data, complying with regulatory standards. Conclusions: The hypothesis for AtheroEdge™ 3.0HDL was scientifically validated, and the model was tested for reliability and stability and is further adaptable clinically.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".