CCTA-Derived coronary plaque burden offers enhanced prognostic value over CAC scoring in suspected CAD patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the prognostic utility of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived quantitative plaque metrics for predicting adverse cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study enrolled 2404 patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) but without a prior history of CAD. All participants underwent CAC scoring and CCTA, with plaque metrics quantified using an artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool (Cleerly, Inc). Percent atheroma volume (PAV) and non-calcified plaque volume percentage (NCPV%), reflecting total plaque burden and the proportion of non-calcified plaque volume normalized to vessel volume, were evaluated. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI). Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for clinical risk factors and early revascularization, were employed for analysis. During a median follow-up of 7.0 years, 208 patients (8.7%) experienced the primary endpoint, including 73 cases of MI (3%). The model incorporating PAV demonstrated superior discriminatory power for the composite endpoint (AUC = 0.729) compared to CAC scoring (AUC = 0.706, P = 0.016). In MI prediction, PAV (AUC = 0.791) significantly outperformed CAC (AUC = 0.699, P < 0.001), with NCPV% showing the highest prognostic accuracy (AUC = 0.814, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: AI-driven assessment of coronary plaque burden enhances prognostic accuracy for future adverse cardiovascular events, highlighting the critical role of comprehensive plaque characterization in refining risk stratification strategies.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".