Back

Machine learning-based advanced coronary artery disease pretest probability model: Comparison with conventional pretest probability models

Hong, Y.; Lee, J.; Park, H.-B.; Kim, W.; Yoon, Y. E.; Jeong, H.; Kim, G.; So, B.; Lee, J.; Dalakoti, M.; Sung, J. M.; Kook, W.; Chang, H.-J.

2026-03-27 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.03.25.26348861 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Pretest probability (PTP) models using clinical risk factors guide decision-making for coronary artery disease (CAD). Existing models (Updated Diamond-Forrester [UDF] and CAD Consortium [CAD2]) exhibit suboptimal predictive efficacy in Asian populations due to ethnic differences in atherosclerosis and risk profiles. We developed an advanced CAD-specific PTP model using ridge-penalized logistic regression and validated its reliability. Methods: Utilizing data from 4,696 Korean patients (3 trials and 2 cohorts), we employed ridge regression to develop an advanced PTP model (K-CAD) for identifying patients with CAD with >=50% diameter stenosis, determined using coronary computed tomography or invasive coronary angiography. External validation used datasets from another tertiary center (External Validation Cohort 1, n=428) and a nationwide health checkup cohort (External Validation Cohort 2, n=117,294). We compared K-CAD with existing models using continuous receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and ternary net reclassification improvement (NRI) analyses. Findings: Continuous ROC analysis in External Validation Cohort 1 revealed areas under the curves (AUCs) for UDF, 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.73); CAD2, 0.71 (95%CI 0.67-0.76), and K-CAD, 0.76 (95%CI 0.71-0.80). K-CAD significantly outperformed UDF (p <0.001) and CAD2 (p <0.05). NRI analysis demonstrated that K-CAD improved reclassification of non-obstructive patients into low-risk categories. External validation using the nationwide dataset (surrogate endpoint: ICD-10 I20) yielded AUCs for UDF, 0.61 (95% CI 0.58-0.64); CAD2, 0.66 (95%CI 0.63-0.69); and K-CAD, 0.67 (95%CI 0.64-0.70). Interpretation: The study demonstrated K-CAD's utility employing extensive high-quality datasets, highlighting its potential for predicting CAD risk in the Korean population.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
10.0%
2
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.3%
3
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.3%
4
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.3%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.7%
6
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
65 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.3%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 20%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
9
Atherosclerosis
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.9%
10
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
11
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
12
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
15
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
16
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
17
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
19
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
20
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
22
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
23
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
24
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
25
Epidemiology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
26
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
27
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.6%
28
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.6%