MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166844418 · doi:10.1148/radiol.13121669

Cardiovascular Risk among Stable Individuals Suspected of Having Coronary Artery Disease with No Modifiable Risk Factors: Results from an International Multicenter Study of 5262 Patients

2013· article· en· W2166844418 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathon Leipsic, Carolyn Taylor, Gilat L. Grunau, Brett Heilbron, G.B. John Mancini, Stephan Achenbach, Mouaz H. Al‐Mallah, Daniel S. Berman, Matthew J. Budoff, Filippo Cademartiri, Tracy Q. Callister, Hyuk‐Jae Chang, Victor Cheng, Kavitha M. Chinnaiyan, Benjamin J.W. Chow, Augustin DeLago, Martin Hadamitzky, Jöerg Hausleiter, Ricardo Cury, Gudrun Feuchtner, Yong-Jin Kim, Philipp A. Kaufmann, Fay Y. Lin, Erica Maffei, Gilbert Raff, Leslee J. Shaw, Todd C. Villines, James K. Min

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicineMulticenter studyDiseaseCardiologyRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the prevalence, extent, severity, and risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients suspected of having CAD but with no medically modifiable risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval or waiver of consent was obtained at each center. This study was HIPAA compliant. From an international multicenter cohort study of 27 125 subjects undergoing coronary computed tomographic (CT) angiography from 12 centers, 5262 patients without known CAD and without modifiable risk factors were identified. CAD severity was defined as none (0%), mild (1%-49%), or obstructive (≥ 50%) on a per-patient, per-vessel, and per-segment basis. CAD presence, extent, and severity were related to incidence of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) by using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 2.3 years ± 1.2 (standard deviation), MACE occurred in 106 patients. CAD was common for nonobstructive (n = 1452, 27%) and obstructive (n = 629, 12%) CAD. In risk-adjusted analysis, per-patient obstructive CAD (hazard ratio [HR], 6.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.68, 12.00; P ≤ .001) was related to MACE. MACE was associated with a dose-response relationship to the number of vessels exhibiting obstructive CAD, increasing risk for obstructive one-vessel (HR, 6.11; 95% CI: 3.22, 11.6; P ≤ .001), two-vessel (HR, 5.86; 95% CI: 2.75, 12.5; P ≤ .0001), or three-vessel or left main (HR, 11.69; 95% CI: 5.38, 25.4; P ≤ .001) CAD. The increased hazard for MACE of obstructive disease holds true for symptomatic (HR, 11.9; 95% CI: 4.81, 29.6; P ≤ .001) and asymptomatic (HR, 6.3; 95% CI: 2.4, 16.7; P ≤ .001) patients. No CAD at coronary CT angiography was associated with a low annualized MACE rate: 0.31% versus 2.06% with obstructive disease. CONCLUSION: Among individuals suspected of having CAD but without modifiable risk factors, CAD is common, with significantly increased hazards for MACE and mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207