ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023
Time and event-specific deep learning for personalized risk assessment after cardiac perfusion imaging.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research on machine learning-based clinical prediction models: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technology in Cardiovascular Imaging: A Narrative Review.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2026Review
- From Exposure to Atherosclerosis: Mechanistic Insights into Phthalate-Driven Ischemic Heart Disease and Prevention Strategies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Nuclear Cardiology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- From marginal gains to clinical utility: machine learning-based percutaneous coronary intervention risk prediction models.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Ischemic Heart Disease Prevention.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Machine learning approaches for risk prediction after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Advancements in Artificial Intelligence in Noninvasive Cardiac Imaging: A Comprehensive Review.Clinical cardiology · 2025Review
- The role of deep learning in myocardial perfusion imaging for diagnosis and prognosis: A systematic review.iScience · 2024Review
- 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 · 2024Article
- A review of evaluation approaches for explainable AI with applications in cardiology.Artificial intelligence review · 2024Article
- Hybridizing machine learning in survival analysis of cardiac PET/CT imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 11 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
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
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.