MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diagnostic Accuracy and Impact of Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography on Utilization of Invasive Coronary Angiography

2009· article· en· W2547301057 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComputed tomographic angiographyCoronary angiographyAngiographyRadiologyComputed tomographicCardiologyInternal medicineComputed tomographyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTA), given its high negative predictive value, is a potential gatekeeper for invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Before CTA can be further accepted into clinical practice, its impact on healthcare resources needs to be better understood. We sought to determine the clinical impact of CTA on ICA referrals, CTA accuracy, and normalcy rate. METHODS AND RESULTS: To determine the impact of CTA, consecutive patients (n=7017) undergoing ICA before and after implementing a dedicated cardiac CT program were reviewed and compared with 3 other centers (n=11 508). To determine CTA accuracy, we evaluated consecutive CTA patients who underwent ICA. For normalcy rate, we identified patients with a low pretest probability for obstructive coronary artery disease. With the implementation of a cardiac CT program, the frequency of normal ICA decreased from 31.5% (1114 of 3538 patients) to 26.8% (932 of 3479 patients) (P<0.001). These findings were significantly different (P=0.003) from the 3 centers, in which normal ICAs were unchanged (30.0% [1870 of 6224 patients] to 31.0% [1642 of 5284 patients]). CTA had excellent per-patient sensitivity (99% [CI, 95% to 100%]), positive predictive value (92% [CI, 86% to 96%]) and negative predictive value (95% [CI, 72% to 100%]). Because of referral bias, specificity (64% [CI, 44% to 81%]) was low; however, the normalcy rate of CTA was 94% (CI, 90% to 97%). After adjusting for referral bias, the adjusted sensitivity was 90% (CI, 89% to 91%), and the adjusted specificity was 95% (CI, 94% to 96%), with positive and negative predictive values of 92% (CI, 91% to 93%) and 93% (CI, 92% to 94%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical implementation of CTA appears to positively impact ICA by reducing the frequency of normal ICA. The operating characteristics of CTA support its potential role as a tool useful in ruling out obstructive coronary artery disease.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.257 · 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