Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37127660›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023

Time and event-specific deep learning for personalized risk assessment after cardiac perfusion imaging.

Konrad Pieszko, Aakash D Shanbhag, Ananya Singh, M Timothy Hauser, Robert J H Miller, Joanna X Liang, Manish Motwani, Jacek Kwieciński, Tali Sharir, Andrew J Einstein and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Artificial Intelligence in Nuclear Cardiology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. The Updated Registry of Fast Myocardial Perfusion Imaging with Next-Generation SPECT (REFINE SPECT 2.0).Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Hybridizing machine learning in survival analysis of cardiac PET/CT imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 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

21 authors at 11 institutions in 6 countries.

Konrad PieszkoDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5514-7750
Aakash D ShanbhagDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ananya SinghDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
M Timothy HauserDepartment of Nuclear Cardiology, Oklahoma Heart Hospital, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Robert J H MillerDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Joanna X LiangDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Manish MotwaniInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4483-5168
Jacek KwiecińskiDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Tali SharirDepartment of Nuclear Cardiology, Assuta Medical Centers, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Andrew J EinsteinDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine and Department of Radiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Mathews B FishOregon Heart and Vascular Institute, Sacred Heart Medical Center, Springfield, OR, USA.
Terrence D RuddyDivision of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0686-5449
Philipp A KaufmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Cardiac Imaging, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9451-5210
Albert J SinusasSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0972-9589
Edward J MillerSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Timothy M BatemanCardiovascular Imaging Technologies LLC, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Sharmila DorbalaDepartment of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Marcelo Di CarliDepartment of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Daniel S BermanDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3793-9578
Damini DeyDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Piotr J SlomkaDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Piotr.Slomka@cshs.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6110-938X
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USYale University · USAssuta Medical Center · ILHeart Imaging Technologies (United States) · USManchester Royal Infirmary · GBNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · USOklahoma Heart Hospital · USProvidence Sacred Heart Medical Center · USUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Quantitative Prediction of Disease and Outcomes from Next Generation SPECT and CTR01HL089765 · NHLBI · CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER · PI SLOMKA, PIOTR J · 2007 to 2021
$6.1M
Patient-specific Outcome Prediction from Cardiovascular Multimodality Imaging by Artificial IntelligenceR35HL161195 · NHLBI · CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER · PI Piotr J Slomka · 2022 to 2026
$5.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL089765NHLBI NIH HHS R35 HL161195
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standard clinical interpretation of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) has proven prognostic value for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). However, personalizing predictions to a specific event type and time interval is more challenging. We demonstrate an explainable deep learning model that predicts the time-specific risk separately for all-cause death, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and revascularization directly from MPI and 15 clinical features. We train and test the model internally using 10-fold hold-out cross-validation (n = 20,418) and externally validate it in three separate sites (n = 13,988) with MACE follow-ups for a median of 3.1 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.6, 3.6). We evaluate the model using the cumulative dynamic area under receiver operating curve (cAUC). The best model performance in the external cohort is observed for short-term prediction - in the first six months after the scan, mean cAUC for ACS and all-cause death reaches 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75, 0.77) and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.79), respectively. The model outperforms conventional perfusion abnormality measures at all time points for the prediction of death in both internal and external validations, with improvement increasing gradually over time. Individualized patient explanations are visualized using waterfall plots, which highlight the contribution degree and direction for each feature. This approach allows the derivation of individual event probability as a function of time as well as patient- and event-specific risk explanations that may help draw attention to modifiable risk factors. Such a method could help present post-scan risk assessments to the patient and foster shared decision-making.

Identifiers

PMID37127660
PMCPMC10151323
OpenAlexW4367598055

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.