MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prediction of family inheritance in non-sarcomeric hypertrophic cardiomyopathy using clinical variables and 12-lead electrocardiogram artificial intelligence models

2024· article· en· W4403846734 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Desjardins, Mourad Bahani, Fédérico Swedsky, Joëlle Rouleau, Julia Cadrin‐Tourigny, Anique Ducharme, Jacinthe Boulet, G. Giraldeau, P L'allier, Patrick Garceau, Joël Gagnon, Annik Fortier, Rafik Tadros, Robert Avram, Maxime Tremblay‐Gravel

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertrophic cardiomyopathyCardiologyInheritance (genetic algorithm)Internal medicineCardiomyopathyArtificial intelligenceHeart failureGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) can be familial even in the absence of a causative sarcomeric variant, justifying periodical screening of first-degree relatives. However, indiscriminate screening may burden low-risk individuals unnecessarily. The prevalence and predictors of familial disease in non-sarcomeric HCM remain inadequately characterized. Purpose Our study aims to develop a tailored approach to family screening based on index cases’ clinical profiles. By leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) models, we aim to predict the likelihood of family disease using pertinent clinical variables and electrocardiograms (ECGs) from the proband. Methods From January 2008 to June 2022, all probands diagnosed with HCM at our Heart Institute genetics clinic were included if they had i) negative genetic testing for a (likely) pathogenic variant in a sarcomeric gene and ii) ≥1 first- or second-degree relative screened for HCM. The outcome was the presence of family disease defined as left ventricular wall thickness ≥13mm or verified autopsy report confirming HCM. Predictors of family disease were assessed at the first genetic clinic visit and considered age, sex, hypertension, and echocardiography metrics (maximal wall thickness, septal morphology, outflow tract obstruction at rest or Valsava). Using 12-lead ECGs and clinical variables, we used machine learning to train two distinct AI models. Model A utilized ECG signals only to train a ResNet model, while Model B used both ECGs and selected clinical variables (below 0.2 alpha level in logistic regressions) to train a random forest model to predict family disease. We performed evaluations at both ECG-level (one ECG used per patient) and patient-level (all available ECGs used in a patient) and we present individual and ensemble model performance. Results Among 356 families with sarcomere-negative HCM, 106 (30%) were familial. Probands were aged 53 ± 16 years, 30% female, 36% with a diagnosis of hypertension and 43% with peak outflow tract obstruction ≥30mmHg. In univariable logistic regressions, family disease was associated with age at diagnosis (OR 0.89 per 5-year, P=0.003), hypertension (OR 0.60, P=0.046) and obstruction (OR 0.52, P=0.013). The ensemble AI model, which integrated clinical and ECG data, achieved an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI: [0.795, 0.848]). It demonstrated a specificity of 0.891 (95% CI: [0.867, 0.913]) and a negative predictive value of 0.798 (95% CI: [0.772, 0.823]). When comparing ECG-level and patient-level data (1 to 10 ECGs per patient), the models consistently achieved AUC values between 0.78 and 0.81, indicating stable performance across various data subsets. Conclusion The prevalence of family inheritance in sarcomere-negative HCM can be accurately predicted using AI models that integrate clinical variables and 12-lead ECG data. This approach could enable tailored screening strategies based on the likelihood of family disease.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.104 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207