MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine learning modelling using cardiac magnetic resonance images to predict cancer therapy related cardiac dysfunction with external validation in HER2+ breast cancer patients

2025· article· en· W4412805891 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher Yu, Mohammad Peikari, Dina Labib, Christian Houbois, Chun‐Po Steve Fan, James A. White, Eitan Amir, Kate Hanneman, Bernd J. Wintersperger, Husam Abdel‐Qadir, Caroline McIntosh, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Supplements · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalToronto General HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerBreast cancerCardiac magnetic resonanceMagnetic resonance imagingCardiac dysfunctionInternal medicineOncologyCardiologyRadiologyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Predicting the risk of cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) remains a challenge. Clinical risk models and conventional cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) analysis are limited in predicting HER2+ targeted therapy (HER2-TT) CTRCD risk.1 Recent studies suggest that deep learning (DL) applied to medical images can identify phenotypes beyond conventional image interpretation.2 Purpose We aimed to determine if DL approaches using CMR cine images pre or early during cancer therapy can predict CTRCD better than clinical risk scores or conventional quantified imaging measures. Methods Women with early-stage HER2+ breast cancer receiving sequential anthracyclines and trastuzumab from three prospective studies (Toronto: EMBRACE MRI, SPARE-HF and Calgary: CIROC) were included. Patients were seen pre- and post-anthracycline and sequentially during treatment with repeated cardiac imaging (echocardiography and CMR). CTRCD was defined using the Cardiac Review and Evaluation Committee criteria. We calculated the HFA-ICOS risk score, and conventionally measured CMR and echocardiography left ventricular size and function (volumes, ejection fraction, strain). Pre- and post-anthracycline data were used to create various models to predict CTRCD. Multiple machine learning models were used including logistic regression (LR). Deep convolutional neural network architectures were used with CMR short-axis cines at the same timepoints to develop image-based DL models to predict CTRCD. Patients from Toronto were used for model derivation and internal validation, while those from Calgary were used for external validation. To gauge the model performance, we calculated the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and F1 score. Results 229 patients were included: 176 in the internal (52 CTRCD events; doxorubicin equivalent dose (DED) 211±20mg/m2) and 53 in the external dataset (14 CTRCD events; DED 216±26mg/m2). The mean age was 51.4±9.5 years. Pre-anthracycline LR models (best performing models) for the HFA-ICOS risk score and quantified CMR and echocardiographic parameters demonstrated AUCs of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.57-0.75); 0.69 (0.65-0.73); and 0.78 (0.74-0.81) to discriminate CTRCD, respectively, with F1 scores of 0.21 (0.18-0.25); 0.41 (0.33-0.48); and 0.51 (0.45-0.57) (Figure 1). Baseline CMR short-axis cine DL model demonstrated the highest AUC 0.85 (0.69-0.97) and F1 score 0.69 (0.47-0.86). On external validation, the DL model had an AUC of 0.80 (0.58-0.86) with an F1 score of 0.55 (0.32-0.69), Figure 2. The addition of post-anthracycline clinical data or CMR images did not improve the clinical and DL models’ performance potentially owing to overfitting to less reliable features, Figure 1. Conclusion In women with breast cancer receiving anthracyclines and HER2-TT, a DL model using CMR short axis cine images pre-anthracycline had higher discrimination for future CTRCD than clinical and conventional imaging quantification models.Figure 1 Figure 2

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal SupplementsSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207