Artificial intelligence-driven multivariate integration for pulmonary arterial pressure prediction in pulmonary hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable machine learning techniques have vast potential in assisting clinical decision-making, including applications in bioinformatics and medical imaging analysis. However, AI-driven medical research is often limited by data scarcity, data quality, and the black-box nature of machine learning models. Thus, there is an urgent need for reliable surrogate models to overcome these challenges, enabling accurate learning from small datasets to guide clinical diagnosis. Here, we conducted a retrospective observational clinical study and proposed a data-driven predictive model that estimates mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) based on individual patient clinical diagnostic features, enabling accurate assessment of pulmonary hypertension. Furthermore, we innovatively incorporate CMR-related features into the disease evaluation framework. Compared to traditional invasive measurement methods, this framework can not only accurately predict a patient's mPAP using easily accessible noninvasive physiological features but also incorporate uncertainty quantification to extract qualitative patterns, aiding clinical diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".