Automated proximal coronary artery calcium identification using artificial intelligence: advancing cardiovascular risk assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Identification of proximal coronary artery calcium (CAC) may improve prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) beyond the CAC score, particularly in patients with low CAC burden. We investigated whether the proximal CAC can be detected on gated cardiac CT and whether it provides prognostic significance with artificial intelligence (AI). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2016 asymptomatic adults with baseline CAC CT scans from a single site were followed up for MACE for 14 years. An AI algorithm to classify CAC into proximal or not was created using expert annotations of total and proximal CAC and AI-derived cardiac structures. The algorithm was evaluated for prognostic significance on AI-derived CAC segmentation. In 303 subjects with expert annotations, the classification of proximal vs. non-proximal CAC reached an area under receiver operating curve of 0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-0.95]. For prognostic evaluation, in an additional 588 subjects with mild AI-derived CAC scores (CAC score 1-99), the AI proximal involvement was associated with worse MACE-free survival (P = 0.008) and higher risk of MACE when adjusting for CAC score alone [hazard ratio (HR) 2.28, 95% CI 1.16-4.48, P = 0.02] or CAC score and clinical risk factors (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03-4.36, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The AI algorithm could identify proximal CAC on CAC CT. The proximal location had modest prognostic significance in subjects with mild CAC scores. The AI identification of proximal CAC can be integrated into automatic CAC scoring and improves the risk prediction of CAC CT.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".