Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34050838›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2021

Role of artificial intelligence in cardiovascular risk prediction and outcomes: comparison of machine-learning and conventional statistical approaches for the analysis of carotid ultrasound features and intra-plaque neovascularization.

Amer M Johri, Laura E Mantella, Ankush D Jamthikar, Luca Saba, John R Laird, Jasjit S Suri

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Machine Learning and the Conundrum of Stroke Risk Prediction.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Amer M JohriDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Laura E MantellaDepartment of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Ankush D JamthikarDepartment of ECE, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, MH, India.
Luca SabaDepartment of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria (A.O.U.), Cagliari, Italy.
John R LairdHeart and Vascular Institute, Adventist Health St. Helena, St Helena, CA, USA.
Jasjit S SuriStroke Diagnosis and Monitoring Division, AtheroPoint™, Roseville, CA, 95661, USA. jasjit.suri@atheropoint.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6499-396X
Queen's University · CAAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Cagliari · ITHealthpoint · AESt. Helena Hospital · USVisvesvaraya National Institute of Technology · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare machine learning (ML) methods with conventional statistical methods to investigate the predictive ability of carotid plaque characteristics for assessing the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) and cardiovascular (CV) events. Focused carotid B-mode ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and coronary angiography were performed on 459 participants. These participants were followed for 30 days. Plaque characteristics such as carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), maximum plaque height (MPH), total plaque area (TPA), and intraplaque neovascularization (IPN) were measured at baseline. Two ML-based algorithms-random forest (RF) and random survival forest (RSF) were used for CAD and CV event prediction. The performance of these algorithms was compared against (i) univariate and multivariate analysis for CAD prediction using the area-under-the-curve (AUC) and (ii) Cox proportional hazard model for CV event prediction using the concordance index (c-index). There was a significant association between CAD and carotid plaque characteristics [cIMT (odds ratio (OR) = 1.49, p = 0.03), MPH (OR = 2.44, p < 0.0001), TPA (OR = 1.61, p < 0.0001), and IPN (OR = 2.78, p < 0.0001)]. IPN alone reported significant CV event prediction (hazard ratio = 1.24, p < 0.0001). CAD prediction using the RF algorithm reported an improvement in AUC by ~ 3% over the univariate analysis with IPN alone (0.97 vs. 0.94, p < 0.0001). Cardiovascular event prediction using RSF demonstrated an improvement in the c-index by ~ 17.8% over the Cox-based model (0.86 vs. 0.73). Carotid imaging phenotypes and IPN were associated with CAD and CV events. The ML-based system is superior to the conventional statistically-derived approaches for CAD prediction and survival analysis.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesCarotid Artery DiseasesCoronary Artery DiseasePlaque, AtheroscleroticArtificial IntelligenceCarotid ArteriesCarotid Intima-Media ThicknessHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansMachine LearningPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsAnd cardiovascular event predictionCoronary artery diseaseFocused carotid ultrasoundIntraplaque neovascularizationMachine learningRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID34050838
OpenAlexW3165216504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.