AI-based identification of patients who benefit from revascularization: a multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Revascularization in stable coronary artery disease often relies on ischemia severity, but we introduce an AI-driven approach that uses clinical and imaging data to estimate individualized treatment effects and guide personalized decisions. Methods: Using a large, international registry from 13 centers, we developed an AI model to estimate individual treatment effects by simulating outcomes under alternative therapeutic strategies. The model was trained on an internal cohort constructed using 1:1 propensity score matching to emulate randomized controlled trials (RCTs), creating balanced patient pairs in which only the treatment strategy-early revascularization (defined as any procedure within 90 days of MPI) versus medical therapy-differed. This design allowed the model to estimate individualized treatment effects, forming the basis for counterfactual reasoning at the patient level. We then derived the AI-REVASC score, which quantifies the potential benefit, for each patient, of early revascularization. The score was validated in the held-out testing cohort using Cox regression. Results: Of 45,252 patients, 19,935 (44.1%) were female, median age 65 (IQR: 57-73). During a median follow-up of 3.6 years (IQR: 2.7-4.9), 4,323 (9.6%) experienced MI or death. The AI model identified a group (n=1,335, 5.9%) that benefits from early revascularization with a propensity-adjusted hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.25-1.00). Patients identified for early revascularization had higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and lower LVEF. Conclusions: This study pioneers a scalable, data-driven approach that emulates randomized trials using retrospective data. The AI-REVASC score enables precision revascularization decisions where guidelines and RCTs fall short.
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 | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".