MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406940698 · doi:10.1101/2025.01.28.25321302

OPPORTUNISTIC ASSESSMENT OF CARDIOVASCULAR RISK USING AI-DERIVED STRUCTURAL AORTIC AND CARDIAC PHENOTYPES FROM NON-CONTRAST CHEST COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

2025· preprint· en· W4406940698 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel W. Oo, A. Sturniolo, Matthias Jung, Marcel C. Langenbach, Borek Foldyna, Douglas P. Kiel, Hugo J.W.L. Aerts, Pradeep Natarajan, Michael T. Lu, Vineet K. Raghu

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputed tomographyMedicineContrast (vision)RadiologyCardiologyInternal medicineArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease relies on accurate risk assessment using scores such as the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) and PREVENT. However, necessary input variables for these scores are often unavailable in the electronic health record (EHR), and information from routinely collected data (e.g., non-contrast chest CT) may further improve performance. Here, we test whether a risk prediction model based on structural features of the heart and aorta from chest CT has added value to existing clinical algorithms for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Methods: We developed a LASSO model to predict fatal MACE over 12 years of follow-up using structural radiomics features describing cardiac chamber and aorta segmentations from 13,437 lung cancer screening chest CTs from the National Lung Screening Trial. We compared this radiomics model to the PCE and PREVENT scores in an external testing set of 4,303 individuals who had a chest CT at a Mass General Brigham site and had no history of diabetes, prior MACE, or statin treatment. Discrimination for incident MACE was assessed using the concordance index. We used a binary threshold to determine MACE rates in patients who were statin-eligible or ineligible by the PCE/PREVENT scores (≥7.5% risk) or the radiomics score (≥5.0% risk). Results were stratified by whether all variables were available to calculate the PCE or PREVENT scores. Results: In the external testing set (n = 4,303; mean age 61.5 ± 9.3 years; 47.1% male), 8.0% had incident MACE over a median 5.1 years of follow-up. The radiomics risk score significantly improved discrimination beyond the PCE (c-index 0.653 vs. 0.567, p < 0.001) and performed similarly in individuals who were missing inputs. Those statin-eligible by both the radiomics and PCE scores had a 2.6-fold higher incidence of MACE than those eligible by the PCE score alone (29.5 [20.5, 39.1] vs. 11.2 [8.0, 14.4] events per 1,000 person-years among PCE-eligible individuals). In patients missing inputs, incident MACE rates were 1.8-fold higher in those statin-eligible by the radiomics score than those statin-ineligible (29.5 [21.9, 37.6] vs. 16.7 [14.3, 19.0] events per 1000 person-years). Similar results were found when comparing to the PREVENT score. Left ventricular volume and short axis length were most predictive of myocardial infarction, while left atrial sphericity and surface-to-volume ratio were most predictive of stroke. Conclusions: Based on a single chest CT, a cardiac shape-based risk prediction model predicted cardiovascular events beyond clinical algorithms and demonstrated similar performance in patients who were missing inputs to standard cardiovascular risk calculators. Patients at high-risk by the radiomics score may benefit from intensified primary prevention (e.g., statin prescription).

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→