Impact of myocardial supply area on the transstenotic hemodynamics as determined by fractional flow reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of myocardial area supplied by the coronary artery on fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND: Various factors other than the degree of epicardial stenosis influence the physiological significance of a coronary artery stenosis. METHODS: A total of 296 coronary lesions in 217 patients were analyzed by quantitative coronary angiography and FFR. Myocardial area supplied by the coronary artery distal to the stenosis was evaluated by angiography using a modified version of the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) score. RESULTS: Percent diameter stenosis of the coronary lesion was 57 ± 15% (mean ± standard deviation). FFR <0.80 was seen in 132 (45%) lesions. FFR was significantly correlated with minimum lumen diameter (r = 0.584, P <0.001), percent diameter stenosis (r = -0.565, P <0.001), lesion length (r = -0.306, P <0.001), and myocardial supply area (r = -0.504, P <0.001). Multivariate logistic analysis demonstrated that minimum lumen diameter (odds ratio [OR] = 0.031, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.013-0.076, P < 0.001), lesion length (OR = 1.038, 95% CI = 1.009-1.069, P = 0.001), and myocardial supply area (OR = 1.113, 95% CI = 1.079-1.147, P <0.001) were independent determinants for FFR <0.80. CONCLUSIONS: FFR, which is the index of physiological significance of coronary artery stenosis, is influenced by myocardial supply area distal to the stenosis as well as by its own minimal lumen diameter and lesion length.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".