Key result
Deep learning-derived AI-VA is linked to ~50% higher incident CVD risk per SD.
Why the study?
Aortic stiffness measured by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity is difficult to assess, and optimal methods to extract and interpret arterial waveform features remain controversial.
Does the AI-VascularAge model derived from noninvasive pressure waveforms predict incident cardiovascular disease in community-based samples?
Cohort (n=17,660)
Yes
Does the AI-VascularAge model derived from noninvasive pressure waveforms predict incident cardiovascular disease in community-based samples?
Hazard Ratio: 1.5 (95% CI 1.24–1.82)
p-value: p=<0.0001
A deep learning model using uncalibrated noninvasive pressure waveforms can estimate vascular age and independently predict incident cardiovascular disease.
May support AI-VA integration into future risk models; leaves open incremental value over conventional predictors in hypertension.
BACKGROUND: Aortic stiffness, assessed as carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, provides a measure of vascular age and risk for adverse cardiovascular disease outcomes, but it is difficult to measure. The shape of arterial pressure waveforms conveys information regarding aortic stiffness; however, the best methods to extract and interpret waveform features remain controversial. METHODS: We trained a convolutional neural network with fixed-scale (time and amplitude) brachial, radial, and carotid tonometry waveforms as input and negative inverse carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity as label. Models were trained with data from 2 community-based Icelandic samples (N=10 452 participants with 31 126 waveforms) and validated in the community-based Framingham Heart Study (N=7208 participants, 21 624 waveforms). Linear regression rescaled predicted negative inverse carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity to equivalent artificial intelligence vascular age (AI-VA). RESULTS: The AI-VascularAge model predicted negative inverse carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity with R 2 =0.64 in a randomly reserved Icelandic test group (n=5061, 16%) and R 2 =0.60 in the Framingham Heart Study. In the Framingham Heart Study (up to 18 years of follow-up; 479 cardiovascular disease, 200 coronary heart disease, and 213 heart failure events), brachial AI-VA was associated with incident cardiovascular disease adjusted for age and sex (model 1; hazard ratio, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.50–2.40] per SD; P <0.0001) or adjusted for age, sex, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, prevalent diabetes, hypertension treatment, and current smoking (model 2; hazard ratio, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.24–1.82] per SD; P <0.0001). Similar hazard ratios were demonstrated for incident coronary heart disease and heart failure events and for AI-VA values estimated from carotid or radial waveforms. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that convolutional neural network–derived AI-VA is a powerful indicator of vascular health and cardiovascular disease risk in a broad community-based sample.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mitchell et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular disease risk (n=17,660). AI-VascularAge (AI-VA) was evaluated on incident cardiovascular disease (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.24-1.82, p=<0.0001). A deep learning-derived artificial intelligence vascular age (AI-VA) was significantly associated with incident cardiovascular disease (adjusted HR 1.50 per SD; 95% CI 1.24-1.82; P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: