MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Atherosclerotic plaque characteristics improve diagnosis of ischemia for non-obstructive coronary artery lesions: a direct comparison to fractional flow reserve

2013· article· en· W2315201574 on OpenAlexaff
H.- B. Park, Ryo Nakazato, Jonathon Leipsic, Heidi Gransar, Matthew J. Budoff, Jennifer Malpeso, Daniel S. Berman, James K. Min

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFractional flow reserveLesionStenosisCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyIschemiaInternal medicineRadiologyArteryTarget lesionAngiographyCoronary angiographyPercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) at the time of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is the gold standard for determining lesion-specific ischemia, and identifies ischemia in a significant proportion of lesions considered anatomically non-obstructive. Beyond luminal stenosis severity, coronary CT angiography (CT) enables evaluation of atherosclerotic plaque characteristics (APCs) that include positive remodeling (PR), low attenuation plaque (LAP) and spotty intra-plaque calcification (SC). The relationship of these APCs to ischemia in non-obstructive coronary lesions has not been evaluated to date. Methods: 252 patients from 17 centers in 5 countries were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent CT and ICA, with clinically indicated FFR performed for 407 coronary lesions. CTs were evaluated by an independent core laboratory in blinded fashion, with ≥50% and <50% stenosis considered obstructive and non-obstructive, respectively. Presence of APCs within coronary lesions by CT was defined as: (1) PR, maximal lesion diameter/reference diameter ≥1.10; (2) LAP, any intra-plaque voxel <30 HU; and (3) SC, nodular calcified plaque ≤3 mm. Coronary lesion-specific ischemia was defined by an FFR ≤0.8. Results: For FFR-interrogated coronary lesions, 195 of 407 (48%) were non-obstructive by CT. FFR-defined ischemia was present in 33 of 195 (17%) lesions, with a mean FFR value of 0.75±0.07. Amongst non-obstructive lesions that caused ischemia, 24 (73%), 9 (27%) and 8 (24%) exhibited PR, LAP and SC, respectively; with at least 1 APC present in 24 (73%) of lesions. In multivariable analyses, the presence of PR [Odds ratio (OR) 6.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4-17.9, p<0.0001)] was associated with lesion-specific ischemia while LAP (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.3-3.2, p=0.9) and SC (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.5-4.5, p=0.5) were not. A dose-response relationship was observed for increasing risk of ischemia for non-obstructive coronary lesions possessing 1 (OR 4.5, p=0.006), 2 (OR 11.8, p<0.001) and 3 (OR 4.0, p=0.1) APCs. Conclusion: The presence of positive arterial remodeling and increasing numbers of APCs enhances diagnosis of non-obstructive coronary lesions that cause ischemia.

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)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→