Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35296940›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2022

Improving Cardiovascular Disease Prediction Using Automated Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring from Existing Chest CTs.

Noam Barda, Noa Dagan, Amos Stemmer, Janni Yuval, Eitan Bachmat, Eldad Elnekave, Ran Balicer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Assessing Real-World Data From Electronic Health Records for Health Technology Assessment: The SUITABILITY Checklist: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2024
    Article
  3. "Incidentalomas" in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023
    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

7 authors.

Noam BardaClalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, Ramat Gan, Israel. noamba@clalit.org.il.
Noa DaganClalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Amos StemmerInstitute of Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Janni YuvalClalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Eitan BachmatDepartment of Computer Science, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Eldad Elnekave *Zebra Medical Vision Ltd, Hutzot, Shefayim, Israel. eldad.elnekave@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3197-7338
Ran Balicer *Clalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, Ramat Gan, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prediction models are widely used in modern medicine and are incorporated into prominent guidelines. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is a marker of coronary atherosclerotic disease and has proven utility for predicting cardiovascular disease. Despite this, current guidelines recommend against including CAC scores in CVD prediction models due to the medical and financial costs of acquiring it, and the insufficient evidence concerning its ability to improve existing models. Modern machine learning models are capable of automatically extracting coronary calcium scores from existing chest computed tomography (CT) scans, negating these costs. To determine whether the inclusion of CAC scores, automatically extracted using a machine learning algorithm from chest CTs performed for any reason, improves the performance of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology 2013 pooled cohort equations (PCE). A retrospective cohort of patients with available chest CTs prior to an index date (2012) was used to compare the performance of the PCE model and an augmented-PCE model which utilizes the CT-based CAC scores on top of the existing model. The PCE and the augmented-PCE predictions were calculated as of an index date (2012) using data from the electronic health record and existing chest CTs. The performance of both models was evaluated by comparing their predictions to cardiovascular events that occurred during a 5-year follow-up period (until 2017). A total of 14,135 patients aged 40-79 years were included in the study, of whom 470 (3.3%) had documented CVD events during the follow-up. The augmented-PCE model showed a significant improvement in c-statistic (0.64 ≥ 0.69, Δ = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.06), sensitivity (53% ≥ 57%, Δ = 4.7%, 95% CI: 0-9.0%), specificity (67% ≥ 70%, Δ = 2.8%, 95% CI: 0.9-5.1%), in positive predictive value (5% ≥ 6%, Δ = 0.9%, 95% CI: 0.4 to 1.4%), negative predictive value (97.7% ≥ 97.9%, Δ = 0.3%, 95% CI: 0.1 to 0.5%), and in the categorical net reclassification index (7.4%, 95% CI: 2.4 to 12.1%). Automatically generated CAC scores from existing CTs can aid in CVD risk determination, improving model performance when used on top of existing predictors. Use of existing CTs avoids most pitfalls currently cited against the routine use of CAC in CVD predictions (e.g., additional radiation exposure), and thus affords a net gain in predictive accuracy.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesCoronary Artery DiseaseVascular CalcificationCalciumCoronary AngiographyHumansPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsUnited StatesCalciumCardiovascular disease predictionCoronary artery calciumMachine learningNeural network

Identifiers

PMID35296940
PMCPMC9485503

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.