Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36386332›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Comparison of conventional scoring systems to machine learning models for the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography.

Seyyed Mojtaba Ghorashi, Amir Fazeli, Behnam Hedayat, Hamid Mokhtari, Arash Jalali, Pooria Ahmadi, Hamid Chalian, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi, Shapour Shirani, Negar Omidi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Seyyed Mojtaba GhorashiTehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Amir FazeliTehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Behnam HedayatTehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Hamid MokhtariBiomedical Engineering and Physics Department, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Arash JalaliTehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Pooria AhmadiTehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Hamid ChalianDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Nicola Luigi BragazziLaboratory for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (LIAM), Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Shapour ShiraniDepartment of Cardiovascular Imaging, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Negar OmidiDepartment of Cardiovascular Imaging, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
University of Tehran · IRTehran University of Medical Sciences · IRShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of Washington · USYork University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The study aims to compare the prognostic performance of conventional scoring systems to a machine learning (ML) model on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to discriminate between the patients with and without major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and to find the most important contributing factor of MACE. Materials and methods: From November to December 2019, 500 of 1586 CCTA scans were included and analyzed, then six conventional scores were calculated for each participant, and seven ML models were designed. Our study endpoints were all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, late coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure. Score performance was assessed by area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Results: Of 500 patients (mean age: 60 ± 10; 53.8% male subjects) referred for CCTA, 416 patients have met inclusion criteria, 46 patients with early (<90 days) cardiac evaluation (due to the inability to clarify the reason for the assessment, deterioration of the symptoms vs. the CCTA result), and 38 patients because of missed follow-up were not enrolled in the final analysis. Forty-six patients (11.0%) developed MACE within 20.5 ± 7.9 months of follow-up. Compared to conventional scores, ML models showed better performance, except only one model which is eXtreme Gradient Boosting had lower performance than conventional scoring systems (AUC:0.824, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.701-0.947). Between ML models, random forest, ensemble with generalized linear, and ensemble with naive Bayes were shown to have higher prognostic performance (AUC: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.85-0.99, AUC: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.81-0.98, and AUC: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.97), respectively. Coronary artery calcium score (CACS) had the highest correlation with MACE. Conclusion: Compared to the conventional scoring system, ML models using CCTA scans show improved prognostic prediction for MACE. Anatomical features were more important than clinical characteristics.

Indexed as

conventional scoringcoronary artery calcium scorescoronary computed tomography angiographymachine learningmajor adverse cardiovascular events

Identifiers

PMID36386332
PMCPMC9643500
OpenAlexW4307550129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.