Update on the clinical utility of coronary computed tomographic angiography in stable angina pectoris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) has emerged as a valuable non-invasive imaging modality with excellent diagnostic performance compared to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for identifying patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Beyond the diagnosis of CAD, CCTA also provides valuable prognostic information. While patients with normal CCTA have excellent long-term prognosis, among those with CAD, increasing CAD extent and severity is associated with increased cardiovascular event risk over both medium- and long-term follow-up in both men and women. The ability to image non-obstructive CAD is a particularly unique attribute of CCTA. Moreover, the ability to assess plaque features on CCTA has further enhanced our understanding of coronary plaque dynamics and the prediction of future cardiovascular events. The clinical impact of CCTA has been recently evaluated in two landmark prospective multicenter trials, which have provided insights into the influence of CCTA on the clinical management of symptomatic patients with suspected CAD. We review the value of CCTA in the evaluation of patients with stable chest pain including its diagnostic performance, prognostic utility and real-world clinical application.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".