This retrospective study analyzed 541 consecutive patients with cardiac amyloidosis evaluated at a single institutional amyloidosis center. The cohort comprised 91 patients with immunoglobulin light-chain cardiac amyloidosis (AL-CA) and 450 patients with wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (ATTRwt-CA). Patients were randomly divided into a derivation cohort (n=378) and an internal validation cohort (n=163) for model development and testing.
The authors aimed to create a pragmatic tool usable at the initial cardiology visit to help triage suspected AL-CA versus ATTRwt-CA and to prioritize urgent hematology referral and subtype-specific confirmatory testing.
Candidate variables available at the first cardiology visit underwent handling of missing data by multiple imputation. Variable selection was performed using LASSO regularization, and estimates from imputed datasets were pooled using Rubin’s rules. Model performance was evaluated with bootstrap validation, calibration assessment, and decision curve analysis to quantify net clinical benefit across threshold probabilities.
Following development, the statistical model was transformed into a simplified point-based clinical score to facilitate bedside or clinic use.
Seven variables were retained in the final model after LASSO selection and imputation pooling:
These predictors reflect a combination of demographic, clinical, laboratory, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic features obtainable at an initial outpatient assessment.
The regression model was converted into a simplified point-based scoring system. In the internal validation cohort, patients were categorized into three risk tiers by total score:
The manuscript reports these tiers as a way to triage patients for urgent hematology referral and expedited confirmatory testing when AL-CA is likely, while avoiding unnecessary urgent workup for low-risk cases.
Discrimination was excellent. Reported area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were:
Decision curve analysis indicated that the model provided net benefit across threshold probabilities from 0.01 to 0.50, supporting potential clinical utility in a range of decision thresholds. Calibration and internal bootstrap validation were performed, though detailed calibration metrics or plots are reported in the full manuscript.
The authors assessed discrimination of AL-CA versus monoclonal protein–positive ATTRwt-CA and reported that at a cutoff of ≥8 points the score achieved an AUC of 0.90 in that comparison. They also state that adding the clinical score to monoclonal protein testing significantly improved diagnostic performance compared with monoclonal protein testing alone. These analyses suggest the score may complement standard laboratory screening in settings where monoclonal protein is present or equivocal.
The study protocol complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and received ethics committee approval from Kumamoto University (Approval No. 1590). The authors report that informed consent and appropriate institutional approvals were obtained.
Several authors disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies and industry; the remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest. The preprint notes that the underlying data are not publicly available because of participant privacy; deidentified data may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and following institutional approval.
Limitations and next steps implied by the report
As reported, this study represents a single-center, retrospective derivation with internal validation. External validation in independent populations and prospective assessment of clinical impact are not described in the source and therefore were not reported. Clinicians considering adoption should note these points and await external validation before widespread implementation.