Single injection protocol for coronary and lower extremity CT angiographies in patients suspected for peripheral arterial disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the feasibility of a single injection protocol for coronary CT angiography (CTA) and lower extremity CTA in patients suspected for peripheral arterial disease (PAD).This prospective observational study included a total of 103 patients who showed an ankle brachial index ≤0.9 and underwent the single injection protocol for coronary and lower extremity CTA. All CTAs used iodinated contrast (weight × 0.06 mL/s × 20 seconds). A prospective Electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated coronary CTA was performed, followed by helical lower extremity CTA beginning 9 seconds after coronary CTA. Using catheter angiography as reference standard, diagnostic ability of CTA was evaluated.The mean total volume of iodinated contrast used was 70 ± 14 mL. Contrast opacification in the superficial femoral artery was adequate (408 ± 97 Hounsfield Units [HU]) and PAD was detected in 72.8% (75/103). The estimated radiation doses for lower extremity and coronary CTA were 3.6 ± 1.2 and 5.5 ± 4.5 mSv. A significant coronary stenosis was detected in 47 patients (45.6%). Coronary CT image quality was recorded as excellent in 86.4%, acceptable in 11.7%, and unacceptable for 1.9%. Contrast opacification within the superficial femoral artery was adequate in all cases while 27.2% needed an additional scan below the calf to capture the contrast bolus arrival in the smaller lower extremity vessels. Segment based sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were 57.9%, 97.9%, 73.8%, and 95.9% for the coronary CTA, and 63.4%, 91.5%, 76.3%, and 85.3% for peripheral CTA.A single injection protocol for coronary CTA and lower extremity CTA is feasible with a relatively small volume of iodinated contrast.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".