Coronary dominance and prognosis in patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography: results from the CONFIRM (COronary CT Angiography EvaluatioN For Clinical Outcomes: An InteRnational Multicenter) registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) has become an important tool for non-invasive diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). Coronary dominance can be assessed by CCTA; however, the predictive value of coronary dominance is controversially discussed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and prognosis of coronary dominance in a large prospective, international multicentre cohort of patients undergoing CCTA. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 6382 patients with or without CAD (47% females, 53% males, mean age 56.9 ± 12.3 years) who underwent CCTA and were followed over a period of 60 months. Right or left coronary dominance was determined. Right dominance was present in 91% (n = 5817) and left in 9% (n = 565) of the study population. At the end of follow-up, outcome in patients with obstructive CAD (>50% luminal stenosis) and right dominance was similar compared with patients with left dominance [hazard ratio (HR) 0.46, 95% CI 0.16-1.32, P = 0.15]. Furthermore, no differences were observed for the type of coronary dominance in patients with non-obstructive CAD (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.41-2.21, P = 0.8962) or normal coronary arteries (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68-1.59, P = 0.9). Subgroup analysis in patients with left main disease revealed an elevated hazard of the combined endpoint for left dominance (HR 6.45, 95% CI 1.66-25.0, P = 0.007), but not for right dominance. CONCLUSION: In our study population, survival after 5 years of follow-up did not differ significantly between patients with left or right coronary dominance. Thus, assessment of coronary vessel dominance by CCTA may not enhance risk stratification in patients with normal coronary arteries or obstructive CAD, but may add prognostic information for specific subpopulations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".