A machine learning prediction model for Cardiac Amyloidosis using routine blood tests in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current approaches for cardiac amyloidosis (CA) identification are time-consuming, labor-intensive, and present challenges in sensitivity and accuracy, leading to limited treatment efficacy and poor prognosis for patients. In this retrospective study, we aimed to leverage machine learning (ML) to create a diagnostic model for CA using data from routine blood tests. Our dataset included 6,563 patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, 261 of whom had been diagnosed with CA. We divided the dataset into training and testing cohorts, applying ML algorithms such as logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost for automated learning and prediction. Our model's diagnostic accuracy was then evaluated against CA biomarkers, specifically serum-free light chains (FLCs). The model's interpretability was elucidated by visualizing the feature importance through the gain map. XGBoost outperformed both random forest and logistic regression in internal validation on the testing cohort, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.92-0.97), sensitivity of 0.92 (95%CI: 0.86-0.98), specificity of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.94-0.97), and an F1 score of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.85-0.92). Its performance was also superior to the serum FLC-kappa and FLC-lambda combination (AUC of 0.88). Furthermore, XGBoost identified unique biomarker signatures indicative of multisystem dysfunction in CA patients, with significant changes in eGFR, FT3, cTnI, ANC, and NT-proBNP. This study develops a highly sensitive and accurate ML model for CA detection using routine clinical laboratory data, effectively streamlining diagnostic procedures, and providing valuable clinical insights and guiding future research into disease mechanisms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".