Clinical likelihood models calibrated against observed obstructive coronary artery disease on computed tomography angiography.

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging Pub Date : 2025-04-30 DOI:10.1093/ehjci/jeaf049
Laust D Rasmussen, Samuel Emil Schmidt, Juhani Knuuti, Jon Spiro, Adil Rajwani, Pedro M Lopes, Maria Rita Lima, António M Ferreira, Teemu Maaniitty, Antti Saraste, David Newby, Pamela S Douglas, Morten Bøttcher, Lohendran Baskaran, Simon Winther
{"title":"Clinical likelihood models calibrated against observed obstructive coronary artery disease on computed tomography angiography.","authors":"Laust D Rasmussen, Samuel Emil Schmidt, Juhani Knuuti, Jon Spiro, Adil Rajwani, Pedro M Lopes, Maria Rita Lima, António M Ferreira, Teemu Maaniitty, Antti Saraste, David Newby, Pamela S Douglas, Morten Bøttcher, Lohendran Baskaran, Simon Winther","doi":"10.1093/ehjci/jeaf049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Models predicting the likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) on invasive coronary angiography exist. However, as stable patients with new-onset chest pain frequently have lower clinical likelihood and preferably undergo index testing by non-invasive tests such as coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), clinical likelihood models calibrated against observed obstructive CAD at CCTA are warranted. The aim was to develop CCTA-calibrated risk-factor- and coronary artery calcium score-weighted clinical likelihood models (i.e. RF-CLCCTA and CACS-CLCCTA models, respectively).</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Based on age, sex, symptoms, and cardiovascular risk factors, an advanced machine learning algorithm utilized a training cohort (n = 38 269) of symptomatic outpatients with suspected obstructive CAD to develop both a RF-CLCCTA model and a CACS-CLCCTA model to predict observed obstructive CAD on CCTA. The models were validated in several cohorts (n = 28 340) and compared with a currently endorsed basic pre-test probability (Basic PTP) model. For both the training and pooled validation cohorts, observed obstructive CAD at CCTA was defined as >50% diameter stenosis. Observed obstructive CAD at CCTA was present in 6443 (22.7%) patients in the pooled validation cohort. While the Basic PTP underestimated the prevalence of observed obstructive CAD at CCTA, the RF-CLCCTA and CACS-CLCCTA models showed superior calibration. Compared with the Basic PTP model, the RF-CLCCTA and CACS-CLCCTA models showed superior discrimination (area under the receiver operating curves 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.72] vs. 0.74 (95% CI 0.73-0.75) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.86-0.87), P < 0.001 for both comparisons).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CCTA-calibrated clinical likelihood models improve calibration and discrimination of observed obstructive CAD at CCTA.</p>","PeriodicalId":12026,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging","volume":" ","pages":"802-813"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12042743/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeaf049","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Models predicting the likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) on invasive coronary angiography exist. However, as stable patients with new-onset chest pain frequently have lower clinical likelihood and preferably undergo index testing by non-invasive tests such as coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), clinical likelihood models calibrated against observed obstructive CAD at CCTA are warranted. The aim was to develop CCTA-calibrated risk-factor- and coronary artery calcium score-weighted clinical likelihood models (i.e. RF-CLCCTA and CACS-CLCCTA models, respectively).

Methods and results: Based on age, sex, symptoms, and cardiovascular risk factors, an advanced machine learning algorithm utilized a training cohort (n = 38 269) of symptomatic outpatients with suspected obstructive CAD to develop both a RF-CLCCTA model and a CACS-CLCCTA model to predict observed obstructive CAD on CCTA. The models were validated in several cohorts (n = 28 340) and compared with a currently endorsed basic pre-test probability (Basic PTP) model. For both the training and pooled validation cohorts, observed obstructive CAD at CCTA was defined as >50% diameter stenosis. Observed obstructive CAD at CCTA was present in 6443 (22.7%) patients in the pooled validation cohort. While the Basic PTP underestimated the prevalence of observed obstructive CAD at CCTA, the RF-CLCCTA and CACS-CLCCTA models showed superior calibration. Compared with the Basic PTP model, the RF-CLCCTA and CACS-CLCCTA models showed superior discrimination (area under the receiver operating curves 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.72] vs. 0.74 (95% CI 0.73-0.75) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.86-0.87), P < 0.001 for both comparisons).

Conclusion: CCTA-calibrated clinical likelihood models improve calibration and discrimination of observed obstructive CAD at CCTA.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床可能性模型校准观察到的阻塞性冠状动脉疾病的计算机断层血管造影。
目的:建立有创冠状动脉造影(ICA)预测阻塞性冠状动脉病变(CAD)可能性的模型。然而,由于新发胸痛的稳定患者通常具有较低的临床可能性,并且最好通过冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影(CCTA)等非侵入性检查进行指数测试,因此根据CCTA观察到的阻塞性CAD校准临床可能性模型是有必要的。目的是建立ccta校准的危险因素和冠状动脉钙评分加权临床可能性模型(即RF-CLCCTA和CACS-CLCCTA模型)。方法和结果:基于年龄、性别、症状和心血管危险因素,一种先进的机器学习算法利用一组疑似阻塞性CAD的有症状门诊患者(n=38,269)进行培训,建立RF-CLCCTA和CACS-CLCCTA模型,以预测CCTA上观察到的阻塞性CAD。这些模型在几个队列(n=28,340)中进行了验证,并与目前认可的基本预测试概率(basic PTP)模型进行了比较。对于训练队列和合并验证队列,CCTA观察到的阻塞性CAD被定义为直径50%的狭窄。在合并验证队列中,6443例(22.7%)患者存在CCTA观察到的阻塞性CAD。虽然基本PTP低估了CCTA观察到的阻塞性CAD的患病率,但RF-CLCCTA和CACS-CLCCTA模型显示出更好的校准。与基本PTP模型相比,RF-CLCCTA和CACS-CLCCTA模型显示出更强的鉴别能力(接受者工作曲线下面积0.71(95%置信区间(CI) 0.70-0.72),分别为0.74 (95%CI0.73-0.75)和0.87 (95%CI 0.86-0.87)。结论:ccta校准的临床似然模型改善了ccta对观察到的阻塞性CAD的校准和鉴别能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging
European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
9.70%
发文量
708
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging is a monthly international peer reviewed journal dealing with Cardiovascular Imaging. It is an official publication of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. The journal aims to publish the highest quality material, both scientific and clinical from all areas of cardiovascular imaging including echocardiography, magnetic resonance, computed tomography, nuclear and invasive imaging. A range of article types will be considered, including original research, reviews, editorials, image focus, letters and recommendation papers from relevant groups of the European Society of Cardiology. In addition it provides a forum for the exchange of information on all aspects of cardiovascular imaging.
期刊最新文献
Association of left ventricular mass with discordant stress cardiac magnetic resonance and coronary angiography. Mitral annular calcification in severe aortic stenosis: prognostic value of calcification severity and mitral valve dysfunction. Sex-specific differences in right heart remodelling and patient outcomes in secondary tricuspid regurgitation. Sex differences in tricuspid regurgitation: a call for awareness. 'Double trouble': when mixed moderate aortic valve disease turns out in a severe clinical issue.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1