ArticleJournal of medical artificial intelligence2024
Hybrid artificial intelligence outcome prediction using features extraction from stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance images and electronic health records.
Article in Journal of medical artificial intelligence, 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.
- AI Applied to Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Precision Medicine in Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Imaging: Current Landscape, Clinical Impact, and Future Directions.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Prediction of clinical outcomes in coronary artery disease (CAD) has been conventionally achieved using clinical risk factors. The relationship between imaging features and outcome is still not well understood. This study aims to use artificial intelligence to link image features with mortality outcome. Methods: A retrospective study was performed on patients who had stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (SP-CMR) between 2011 and 2021. The endpoint was all-cause mortality. Convolutional neural network (CNN) was used to extract features from stress perfusion images, and multilayer perceptron (MLP) to extract features from electronic health records (EHRs), both networks were concatenated in a hybrid neural network (HNN) to predict study endpoint. Image CNN was trained to predict study endpoint directly from images. HNN and image CNN were compared with a linear clinical model using area under the curve (AUC), F1 scores, and McNemar's test. Results: Total of 1,286 cases were identified, with 201 death events (16%). The clinical model had good performance (AUC =80%, F1 score =37%). Best Image CNN model showed AUC =72% and F1 score =38%. HNN outperformed the other two models (AUC =82%, F1 score =43%). McNemar's test showed statistical difference between image CNN and both clinical model (P<0.01) and HNN (P<0.01). There was no significant difference between HNN and clinical model (P=0.15). Conclusions: Death in patients with suspected or known CAD can be predicted directly from stress perfusion images without clinical knowledge. Prediction can be improved by HNN that combines clinical and SP-CMR images.
Indexed as
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.