The ASLA Score: A CT Angiographic Index to Predict Functionally Significant Coronary Stenoses in Lesions with Intermediate Severity—Diagnostic Accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify computed tomographic (CT) coronary indexes independently associated with a fractional flow reserve (FFR) of 0.8 or less, to derive a score that combines CT indexes most predictive of an FFR of 0.8 or less, and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the score in predicting an FFR of 0.8 or less. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study had institutional review board approval and waiver of the need to obtain informed consent. Consecutive patients who underwent CT coronary angiography and FFR assessment with one or more discrete lesion(s) of intermediate (30%-70%) severity at CT were included. Quantitative CT measurements were performed by using dedicated software. The CT indexes evaluated included the following: plaque burden, minimal luminal area and diameter, stenosis diameter, area of stenosis, lesion length, remodeling index, plaque morphology, calcification severity, and the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) score, which approximates the size of the myocardium subtended by a lesion. By using covariates independently associated with an FFR of 0.8 or less, a score was determined on the basis of modified Akaike information criteria, and the C statistics of individual and combined indexes were compared. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients (mean age, 64.2 years; range, 48-88 years; 65.9% men; 124 lesions; 38 lesions with an FFR ≤ 0.8) were included. Area of stenosis, lesion length, and APPROACH score were the strongest predictors of an FFR of 0.8 or less and were used to derive the ASLA score. The optimism-adjusted Harrell C statistic for the combined score was 0.82, which was superior to that for area of stenosis (0.74), lesion length (0.75), and the APPROACH score (0.71) (P < .001 for trend). The corresponding incremental discrimination improvement indexes were 0.17, 0.11, and 0.19, respectively (P < .001 for all), suggesting that the score improves reclassification compared with any one angiographic index. The average time required for score derivation was 102.6 seconds. CONCLUSION: The ASLA score, which accounts for CT-derived area of stenosis, lesion length, and APPROACH score, may conveniently improve the prediction, beyond individual indexes, of functionally significant intermediate coronary lesions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".