Personalized decision making for coronary artery disease treatment using offline reinforcement learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Choosing optimal revascularization strategies for patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a clinical challenge. While randomized controlled trials offer population-level insights, gaps remain regarding personalized decision-making for individual patients. We applied off-policy reinforcement learning (RL) to a composite data model from 41,328 unique patients with angiography-confirmed obstructive CAD. In an offline setting, we estimated optimal treatment policies and evaluated these policies using weighted importance sampling. Our findings indicate that RL-guided therapy decisions outperformed physician-based decision making, with RL policies achieving up to 32% improvement in expected rewards based on composite major cardiovascular events outcomes. Additionally, we introduced methods to ensure that RL CAD treatment policies remain compatible with locally achievable clinical practice models, presenting an interpretable RL policy with a limited number of states. Overall, this novel RL-based clinical decision support tool, RL4CAD, demonstrates potential to optimize care in patients with obstructive CAD referred for invasive coronary angiography.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".