Machine-learning phenotyping of patients with functional mitral regurgitation undergoing transcatheter edge-to-edge repair: the MITRA-AI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Severe functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) may benefit from mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER), but selection of patients remains to be optimized. Objectives The aim of this study was to use machine-learning (ML) approaches to uncover concealed connections between clinical, echocardiographic, and haemodynamic data associated with patients’ outcomes. Methods and results Consecutive patients undergoing TEER from 2009 to 2020 were included in the MITRA-AI registry. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization at 1 year. External validation was performed on the Mitrascore cohort. 822 patients were included. The composite primary endpoint occurred in 250 (30%) patients. Four clusters with decreasing risk of the primary endpoint were identified (42, 37, 25, and 20% from Cluster 1 to Cluster 4, respectively). Clusters were combined into a high-risk (Clusters 1 and 2) and a low-risk phenotype (Clusters 3 and 4). High-risk phenotype patients had larger left ventriculars (LVs) (>107 mL/m2), lower left ventricular ejection fraction (<35%), and more prevalent ischaemic aetiology compared with low-risk phenotype patients. Within low-risk groups, permanent atrial fibrillation amplified that of HF hospitalizations. In the Mitrascore cohort, the incidence of the primary endpoint was 48, 52, 35, and 42% across clusters. Conclusion A ML analysis identified meaningful clinical phenotypic presentations in FMR undergoing TEER, with significant differences in terms of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations, confirmed in an external validation cohort.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".