MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Incremental Prognostic Value of Cardiac Computed Tomography in Coronary Artery Disease Using CONFIRM

2011· article· en· W2548121913 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Benjamin J.W. Chow, Gary R. Small, Yeung Yam, Li Chen, 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, Augustin DeLago, Allison Dunning, Martin Hadamitzky, Jörg Hausleiter, Philipp A. Kaufmann, Fay Y. Lin, Erica Maffei, Gilbert Raff, Leslee J. Shaw, Todd C. Villines, James K. Min

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioEjection fractionCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicineCardiologyConfidence intervalRevascularizationMyocardial infarctionHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Large multicenter studies validating the prognostic value of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are lacking. We sought to confirm the independent and incremental prognostic value of coronary artery disease (CAD) severity measured using 64-slice CCTA over LVEF and clinical variables. METHODS AND RESULTS: A large international multicenter registry (CONFIRM Registry) was queried, and CCTA patients with LVEF data on CCTA were screened. Patients with a history of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, or cardiac transplantation were excluded. The National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III risk was calculated for each patient, and CCTA was evaluated for CAD severity (normal, nonobstructive, non-high-risk, or high-risk CAD) and LVEF <50%. Patients were followed for an end point of all-cause mortality; 27 125 patients underwent CCTA at 12 participating centers, with a total of 14 064 patients meeting the analysis criteria. Follow-up was available for 13 966 (99.3%) patients (mean follow-up of 22.5 months; 95% confidence interval, 22.3 to 22.7 months). All-cause mortality (271 deaths) occurred in 0.65% of patients without coronary atherosclerosis, 1.99% of patients with nonobstructive CAD, 2.90% of patients with non-high-risk CAD, and 4.95% for patients with high-risk CAD. Multivariable analysis confirmed that LVEF <50% (hazard ratio, 2.74; 95% confidence interval, 2.12 to 3.51) and CAD severity (hazard ratio,1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.42 to 1.76) were predictors of all-cause mortality, and CAD severity had incremental value over LVEF and clinical variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that CCTA measures of CAD severity and LVEF have independent prognostic value. Incorporation of CAD severity provides incremental value for predicting all-cause death over routine clinical predictors and LVEF in patients with suspected obstructive CAD.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations223
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207