CXR‑Hemo: A Calibrated Logistic Model and Deployable API for Threshold‑linked Hemodynamic Risk

Main Article Content

Chi Ming Chiang

Abstract

Background: Routine chest radiography (CXR) is inexpensive and ubiquitous. Beyond categorical reads, classical CXR metrics—CTR, VPW, and a lung transparency index (LTI)—encode hemodynamic and pulmonary information. We present CXR‑Hemo, a math‑first framework and deployable API that converts these metrics together with bedside physiology (SpO2, ABG/VBG, MAP) into calibrated probabilities linked to clinical decision thresholds via decision‑curve analysis (DCA).
Methods: We formalize a constrained logistic risk function with monotonic feature effects and a reader‑in‑the‑loop design. Image metrics are computed automatically from standardized definitions: CTR from transverse diameters; VPW from mediastinal landmarks with projection‑aware scaling (millimeters via DICOM PixelSpacing); and LTI from normalized lung‑mask intensity. Physiologic inputs include SpO2, ABG/VBG surrogates, lactate, and MAP. Post‑hoc probability calibration uses isotonic regression or temperature scaling with reliability curves and Brier score auditing. Clinical utility is summarized across 0.2–0.6 thresholds using DCA. We expose three JSON endpoints—/cxr/metrics, /physio/ingest, and /risk/hemo—to return calibrated risk, attention weights, and net‑benefit snapshots.
Findings (analytical demonstration): We provide calibration diagnostics and DCA curves using simulated data to illustrate threshold‑linked interpretation, accompanied by a schematic depicting dual encoders, a modality gate α, a constrained logistic head, and post‑hoc calibration to produce an actionable probability.
Interpretation: By explicitly foregrounding calibration and DCA, CXR‑Hemo links probabilities to threshold‑anchored actions and can avert discretionary CT in risk ranges where model‑guided net benefit exceeds ‘CT‑for‑all’ [1,2]. Given the large dose differential between CXR and chest CT in adults (≈0.1 mSv vs. several mSv), the framework has the potential to reduce population radiation exposure while maintaining clinical safety [3,4].
CXR‑Hemo reframes routine CXR and basic gases as a probabilistic, interpretable sensor for hemodynamic risk. By foregrounding calibration and DCA, the approach links probabilities to actions, enabling a transparent, threshold‑aware tool suitable for resource‑variable emergency care.

Article Details

Chiang, C. M. (2025). CXR‑Hemo: A Calibrated Logistic Model and Deployable API for Threshold‑linked Hemodynamic Risk. Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, 137–140. https://doi.org/10.29328/journal.jccm.1001221
Case Presentations

Copyright (c) 2015 Chiang CM.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(6):565–574. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x06295361

Vickers AJ, Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. A simple, step-by-step guide to interpreting decision curve analysis. Diagn Progn Res. 2019;3:18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-019-0064-7

RadiologyInfo.org (ACR/RSNA). Radiation dose from X-ray and CT exams. Reviewed April 15, 2025. Typical adult chest X-ray ≈0.1 mSv. Available from: https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info/safety-xray

Larke FJ, Kruger RL, Cagnon CH, Flynn MJ, McNitt-Gray MM, Wu X, et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with low-dose chest CT protocols. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(1):W8–W17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.11.6533

Huang Y, Li W, Macheret F, Gabriel RA. A tutorial on calibration measurements and calibration models for clinical prediction models. Stat Med. 2020;39(30):4051–4074. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz228

Yang Y, Zheng J, Guo P, Wu T, Gao Q, Guo Y, et al. Automatic cardiothoracic ratio calculation based on lung fields in PA CXR. Front Physiol. 2024;14:1416192. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.1416912

Kufel J, Paszkiewicz I, Kocot S, Lis A, Dudek P, Czogalik Ł, et al. Deep learning in cardiothoracic ratio calculation and its clinical utility. Diagnostics. 2024;14(7):e000000. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13144180

Ely EW. Using the chest radiograph to determine intravascular volume status: the role of vascular pedicle width. Chest. 2002;121:942–950. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.121.3.942

Wang H, Shi R, Mahler S, Gaspard J, Gorchynski J, D'Etienne J, et al. Vascular pedicle width on chest radiograph as a measure of circulating blood volume. J Intensive Care Med. 2011;26:343–349. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2011.3.2023

Saberian L, Sharif M, Aarabi M, Broumand B, Shafiee MA. Arterial versus venous blood gas analysis: comparisons, appropriateness, and alternatives in adult-based clinical settings. Cureus. 2023;15(7):e41707. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.41707

Prasad H, Vempalli N, Agrawal N, Ajun UN, Salam A, Datta SS, et al. Correlation and agreement between arterial and venous blood gas in hypotensive ED patients. Int J Emerg Med. 2023;16:65. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-023-00486-0

Weimar Z, Smallwood N, Shao J, Chen XE, Moran TP, Khor YH, et al. Arterial blood gas analysis or venous blood gas analysis in the ED? Intern Med J. 2024;54(8):1420–1428. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.16438

Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: 2021 international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181–1247. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y