Abstract 4367720: Artificial Intelligence to Adjudicate Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Clinical Trials

Background: Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)—cardiovascular (CV) death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and non-fatal stroke—are highly relevant clinical outcomes. In global randomized trials, medical-record review by a physician clinical events committee (CEC) is the gold standard method for adjudicating MACE events but is labor intensive. Automated adjudication with artificial intelligence (AI) could reduce cost and improve reproducibility. Research Question: Is AI-based adjudication of MACE accurate compared to human CEC review in a global randomized trial? Methods: We developed an AI-based adjudication system (“Auto-MACE”) that uses a iteratively refined prompt of the OpenAI o1-mini language model to generate a primary adjudication for each event based on discharge summaries. A complementary Clinical Longformer model trained on previously adjudicated events assigns a confidence level: confident accept, uncertain, or confident reject. We validated Auto-MACE against CEC adjudication in the PARADISE-MI trial, a global study comparing sacubitril/valsartan to ramipril in 5,661 patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both. We also compared the estimated treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril on composite MACE using each adjudication method. Results: The PARADISE-MI CEC reviewed 455 all-cause deaths, 658 potential non-fatal MI’s, and 167 potential non-fatal strokes. Auto-MACE agreed with the CEC adjudications in 86% of CV death events, 76% of MI events, and 84% of stroke events (Cohen’s Kappa of 0.70, 0.54, and 0.54 respectively). The model classified 41% of cases as uncertain (31% of deaths, 54% of MIs, and 19% of strokes). Among the remaining confident events, agreement with the CEC rose to 97% for CV deaths, 89% for MIs, and 88% for strokes (Cohen’s Kappa of 0.89, 0.78, and 0.50 respectively) ( Figure ). The estimated effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril on composite MACE was similar with Auto-MACE adjudication (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.78-1.07]) and CEC adjudication (HR 0.90 [95% CI 0.77-1.05]). Conclusion: AI-based adjudication of MACE showed high agreement with gold-standard CEC adjudication, especially for CV death and stroke, and for events in which the model was confident. A strategy of initial AI-based adjudication with human review of uncertain events may reduce adjudication workload while maintaining accuracy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.152.suppl_3.4367720
Primary Topic
Machine Learning in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4367720: Artificial Intelligence to Adjudicate Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Clinical Trials

Orly Vardeny, Pardeep S. Jhund, Eldrin Foster Lewis, John J.V. McMurray et al.
Circulation
Machine Learning in Healthcare
article

Abstract 4367720: Artificial Intelligence to Adjudicate Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Clinical Trials

Orly Vardeny, Pardeep S. Jhund, Eldrin Foster Lewis, John J.V. McMurray, Dongchu Xu, Samarra Badrouchi, Shaan Khurshid, Brian Claggett, Scott David Solomon, Pablo-Miki Martí Castellote, Patrick T. Ellinor, Jonathan W. Cunningham, Mahnaz Maddah, Jennifer Hui‐Chun Ho, Akshay S. Desai, Marc A. Pfeffer
article en

Abstract

Background: Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)—cardiovascular (CV) death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and non-fatal stroke—are highly relevant clinical outcomes. In global randomized trials, medical-record review by a physician clinical events committee (CEC) is the gold standard method for adjudicating MACE events but is labor intensive. Automated adjudication with artificial intelligence (AI) could reduce cost and improve reproducibility. Research Question: Is AI-based adjudication of MACE accurate compared to human CEC review in a global randomized trial? Methods: We developed an AI-based adjudication system (“Auto-MACE”) that uses a iteratively refined prompt of the OpenAI o1-mini language model to generate a primary adjudication for each event based on discharge summaries. A complementary Clinical Longformer model trained on previously adjudicated events assigns a confidence level: confident accept, uncertain, or confident reject. We validated Auto-MACE against CEC adjudication in the PARADISE-MI trial, a global study comparing sacubitril/valsartan to ramipril in 5,661 patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both. We also compared the estimated treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril on composite MACE using each adjudication method. Results: The PARADISE-MI CEC reviewed 455 all-cause deaths, 658 potential non-fatal MI’s, and 167 potential non-fatal strokes. Auto-MACE agreed with the CEC adjudications in 86% of CV death events, 76% of MI events, and 84% of stroke events (Cohen’s Kappa of 0.70, 0.54, and 0.54 respectively). The model classified 41% of cases as uncertain (31% of deaths, 54% of MIs, and 19% of strokes). Among the remaining confident events, agreement with the CEC rose to 97% for CV deaths, 89% for MIs, and 88% for strokes (Cohen’s Kappa of 0.89, 0.78, and 0.50 respectively) ( Figure ). The estimated effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril on composite MACE was similar with Auto-MACE adjudication (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.78-1.07]) and CEC adjudication (HR 0.90 [95% CI 0.77-1.05]). Conclusion: AI-based adjudication of MACE showed high agreement with gold-standard CEC adjudication, especially for CV death and stroke, and for events in which the model was confident. A strategy of initial AI-based adjudication with human review of uncertain events may reduce adjudication workload while maintaining accuracy.

CirculationVol. 152(Suppl_3)
Broad Institute (US), Brigham and Women's Hospital (US), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US), Harvard University (US), Palo Alto University (US), Chestnut Hill College (US), British Heart Foundation (GB), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), Minneapolis VA Health Care System (US), University of Glasgow (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Machine Learning in Healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.