Prediction and critical feature analysis for coronary artery calcification progression.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Ran Liu, Gaojian Yang, Wenyu Huang, Junyan Zhang, Yuting Lei, Rui Zhang, Zhongxiu Chen, Yong He, Hongmei Yan, Kaiyue Diao
{"title":"Prediction and critical feature analysis for coronary artery calcification progression.","authors":"Ran Liu, Gaojian Yang, Wenyu Huang, Junyan Zhang, Yuting Lei, Rui Zhang, Zhongxiu Chen, Yong He, Hongmei Yan, Kaiyue Diao","doi":"10.1007/s11517-026-03647-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Coronary calcification is a prevalent pathology and strong cardiovascular indicator. However, its progression drivers remain poorly defined. With limited clinical samples, it is unclear if simple traditional machine learning can effectively predict progression, challenging risk assessment and individualized treatment. We assembled a serial CCTA dataset of 2,579 patients from West China Hospital. Using Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Decision Trees, XGBoost, and Logistic Regression with SHAP analysis, we identified key features of coronary artery calcification progression and built predictive models, then compared them with traditional clinical models. The Random Forest (RF) model achieved an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.84) vs. 0.64 (0.59-0.68) for the traditional model. Baseline CACS, plaque burden, and other CCTA features were key predictors, with critical thresholds determined. A coronary artery calcification progression prediction score (CACPPS) was derived to quantify personalized progression risk. The RF model also showed acceptable calibration (Brier score = 0.169; Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.415), favorable decision-curve net benefit, and an optimal CACPPS threshold of 0.566. In patients with suspected or confirmed CAD, a traditional yet interpretable machine learning model can predict CACS progression and generate CACPPS to support treatment decisions and dynamic individualized management, mitigating black-box concerns through indirect interpretability.</p>","PeriodicalId":49840,"journal":{"name":"Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing","volume":" ","pages":"3399-3411"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-026-03647-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Coronary calcification is a prevalent pathology and strong cardiovascular indicator. However, its progression drivers remain poorly defined. With limited clinical samples, it is unclear if simple traditional machine learning can effectively predict progression, challenging risk assessment and individualized treatment. We assembled a serial CCTA dataset of 2,579 patients from West China Hospital. Using Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Decision Trees, XGBoost, and Logistic Regression with SHAP analysis, we identified key features of coronary artery calcification progression and built predictive models, then compared them with traditional clinical models. The Random Forest (RF) model achieved an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.84) vs. 0.64 (0.59-0.68) for the traditional model. Baseline CACS, plaque burden, and other CCTA features were key predictors, with critical thresholds determined. A coronary artery calcification progression prediction score (CACPPS) was derived to quantify personalized progression risk. The RF model also showed acceptable calibration (Brier score = 0.169; Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.415), favorable decision-curve net benefit, and an optimal CACPPS threshold of 0.566. In patients with suspected or confirmed CAD, a traditional yet interpretable machine learning model can predict CACS progression and generate CACPPS to support treatment decisions and dynamic individualized management, mitigating black-box concerns through indirect interpretability.

冠状动脉钙化进展的预测及关键特征分析。
冠状动脉钙化是一种普遍的病理和强有力的心血管指标。然而,其发展驱动因素仍不明确。由于临床样本有限,尚不清楚简单的传统机器学习是否可以有效地预测进展,具有挑战性的风险评估和个性化治疗。我们收集了华西医院2579例患者的连续CCTA数据集。利用随机森林、梯度增强决策树、XGBoost和Logistic回归与SHAP分析,我们确定了冠状动脉钙化进展的关键特征,建立了预测模型,并将其与传统的临床模型进行了比较。随机森林(RF)模型的AUC为0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.84),而传统模型的AUC为0.64(0.59-0.68)。基线CACS、斑块负担和其他CCTA特征是关键的预测因素,确定了临界阈值。冠状动脉钙化进展预测评分(CACPPS)用于量化个体化进展风险。RF模型也显示出可接受的校准(Brier评分= 0.169;Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.415),有利的决策曲线净效益,最优CACPPS阈值为0.566。在疑似或确诊CAD的患者中,传统的可解释的机器学习模型可以预测CACS的进展,并生成CACPPS,以支持治疗决策和动态个性化管理,通过间接可解释性减轻黑箱问题。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.10%
发文量
249
审稿时长
3.5 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1963, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing (MBEC) continues to serve the biomedical engineering community, covering the entire spectrum of biomedical and clinical engineering. The journal presents exciting and vital experimental and theoretical developments in biomedical science and technology, and reports on advances in computer-based methodologies in these multidisciplinary subjects. The journal also incorporates new and evolving technologies including cellular engineering and molecular imaging. MBEC publishes original research articles as well as reviews and technical notes. Its Rapid Communications category focuses on material of immediate value to the readership, while the Controversies section provides a forum to exchange views on selected issues, stimulating a vigorous and informed debate in this exciting and high profile field. MBEC is an official journal of the International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineering (IFMBE).
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书