MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing Coronary Artery Disease Risk Using Seismocardiography in Patients with Chest Pain

2025· article· en· W4416960578 on OpenAlexaff
Parastoo Dehkordi, Kouhyar Tavakolian, Zhen Gang Xiao, A. Yuldashov, Farzad Khosrow-Khavar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heart Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChest painCoronary artery diseaseCADCategorical variableCoronary angiographyAngiographyElectrocardiographyFramingham Risk Score

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study introduces the EMR Score, a novel approach that integrates seismocardiography (SCG) features with clinical risk factors to estimate the pre-test probability of coronary artery disease (CAD) while focusing solely on chest pain presence. Data were collected from a multicenter randomized trial enrolling 1,640 participants, including 740 patients diagnosed with obstructive CAD and 900 healthy controls. CAD diagnosis was confirmed using coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) or invasive coronary angiography (ICA). SCG and electrocardiography (ECG) signals were recorded using the HeartForce CardioClin device. The EMR Score was developed using a one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1D CNN) trained on SCG-derived features and clinical variables, including age, sex, smoking status, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, family history, and chest pain presence. The final model produced probabilities for CAD and non-CAD outcomes, optimized using categorical cross-entropy and the Adam optimizer, with performance evaluated via cross-validation. Unlike traditional models that rely on chest pain subtyping, the EMR Score follows the American Heart Association's (AHA) recommendation to prioritize chest pain as a key screening factor, reducing interobserver variability and improving applicability across diverse populations. The EMR Score outperformed the AHA model, achieving a higher AUC (0.85 vs. 0.74) and improved specificity (42% vs. 35%) while maintaining high sensitivity (96% vs. 90%). It also reclassified many intermediate-risk patients (69% in the AHA model vs. 19%), shifting them to low- (25%) or high-risk (55%) categories, where CAD prevalence was 8% and 70%, respectively. By eliminating subjective symptom classification and leveraging SCG-derived features, the EMR Score provides a scalable, cost-effective screening tool that enhances CAD risk stratification and optimizes clinical decision-making.

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)0.000
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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207