ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Machine learning-based coronary artery calcium score predicted from clinical variables as a prognostic indicator in patients referred for invasive coronary angiography.
Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostication and clinical opportunities with AI for coronary artery calcium: a scoping review.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesUtilising readily available clinical variables, we aimed to develop and validate a novel machine learning (ML) model to predict severe coronary calcification, and further assessed its prognostic significance.
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled patients who underwent coronary CT angiography and subsequent invasive coronary angiography. Multiple ML algorithms were used to train the models for predicting severe coronary calcification (cardiac CT-measured coronary artery calcium [CT-CAC] score ≥ 400). The ML-based CAC (ML-CAC) score derived from the ML predictive probability was stratified into quartiles for prognostic analysis. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.
resultsOverall, 5785 patients were divided into training (80%) and test sets (20%). For clinical practicability, we selected the nine-feature support vector machine model with good and satisfactory performance regarding both discrimination and calibration based on five repetitions of the 10-fold cross-validation in the training set (mean AUC = 0.715, Brier score = 0.202), and based on the test in the test set (AUC = 0.753, Brier score = 0.191). In the test set cohort (n = 1137), the primary endpoint was observed in 50 (4.4%) patients during a median 2.8 years' follow-up. The ML-CAC system was significantly associated with an increased risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio for trend 2.26, 95% CI 1.35-3.79, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the prognostic value between the ML-CAC and CT-CAC systems (C-index, 0.67 vs. 0.69; p = 0.618).
conclusionML-CAC score predicted from clinical variables can serve as a novel prognostic indicator in patients referred for invasive coronary angiography. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In patients referred for invasive coronary angiography who have not undergone preoperative CT-measured coronary artery calcium scoring, machine learning-based coronary artery calcium score assessment can serve as an alternative for predicting the prognosis. KEY POINTS: • The coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, a solid prognostic indicator, can be predicted using non-CT methods. • We developed a machine learning (ML)-CAC model utilising nine clinical variables to predict severe coronary calcification. • The ML-CAC system offers significant prognostic value in patients referred for invasive coronary angiography.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38337067What 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.