MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403271579 · doi:10.1186/s40959-024-00268-4

Building a machine learning-assisted echocardiography prediction tool for children at risk for cancer therapy-related cardiomyopathy

2024· article· en· W4403271579 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsay A. Edwards, Christina J. Yang, Surbhi Sharma, Zih-Hua Chen, Lahari Gorantla, Sanika A. Joshi, Nicolas J. Longhi, Nahom Wondwossen Worku, Jamie S. Yang, Brandy Martinez Di Pietro, Saro H. Armenian, Aarti Bhat, William L. Border, Sujatha Buddhe, Nancy Blythe, Kayla Stratton, Kasey J. Leger, Wendy M. Leisenring, Lillian R. Meacham, Paul C. Nathan, Shanti Narasimhan, Ritu Sachdeva, Karim Thomas Sadak, Eric J. Chow, Patrick M. Boyle

Bibliographic record

VenueCardio-Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCatherine Holmes Wilkins Charitable FoundationSeattle Children's Research InstituteNational Cancer InstituteRally Foundation
KeywordsCardiomyopathyMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite routine echocardiographic surveillance for childhood cancer survivors, the ability to predict cardiomyopathy risk in individual patients is limited. We explored the feasibility and optimal processes for machine learning-enhanced cardiomyopathy prediction in survivors using serial echocardiograms from five centers. METHODS: We designed a series of deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) for prediction of cardiomyopathy (shortening fraction ≤ 28% or ejection fraction ≤ 50% on two occasions) for at-risk survivors ≥ 1-year post initial cancer therapy. We built DCNNs with four subsets of echocardiographic data differing in timing relative to case (survivor who developed cardiomyopathy) index diagnosis and two input formats (montages) with differing image selections. We used holdout subsets in a 10-fold cross-validation framework and standard metrics to assess model performance (e.g., F1-score, area under the precision-recall curve [AUPRC]). Performance of the input formats was compared using a combined 5 × 2 cross-validation F-test. RESULTS: The dataset included 542 pairs of montages: 171 montage pairs from 45 cases at time of cardiomyopathy diagnosis or pre-diagnosis and 371 pairs from 70 at-risk survivors who didn't develop cardiomyopathy during follow-up (non-case). The DCNN trained to distinguish between non-case and time of cardiomyopathy diagnosis or pre-diagnosis case montages achieved an AUROC of 0.89 ± 0.02, AUPRC 0.83 ± 0.03, and F1-score: 0.76 ± 0.04. When limited to smaller subsets of case data (e.g., ≥ 1 or 2 years pre-diagnosis), performance worsened. Model input format did not impact performance accuracy across models. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology is a promising first step toward development of a DCNN capable of accurately differentiating pre-diagnosis versus non-case echocardiograms to predict survivors more likely to develop cardiomyopathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardio-OncologySame topicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigationFrench-language works237,207