MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990908163 · doi:10.1111/ajt.15721

Coronary computed tomography–angiography quantitative plaque analysis improves detection of early cardiac allograft vasculopathy: A pilot study

2019· article· en· W2990908163 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J.H. Miller, Jacek Kwieciński, Kevin Shah, Evann Eisenberg, J. Patel, Jon Kobashigawa, Babak Azarbal, Balaji Tamarappoo, Daniel S. Berman, Piotr J. Slomka, E. Kransdorf, Damini Dey

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac allograft vasculopathyStenosisRadiologyAngiographyComputed tomography angiographyComplicationReceiver operating characteristicCardiac imagingGold standard (test)CardiologyInternal medicineHeart transplantationNuclear medicineTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is an increasingly important complication after cardiac transplant. We assessed the additive diagnostic benefit of quantitative plaque analysis in patients undergoing coronary computed tomography–angiography (CCTA). Consecutive patients undergoing CCTA for CAV surveillance were identified. Scans were visually interpreted for coronary stenosis. Semiautomated software was used to quantify noncalcified plaque (NCP), as well as its components. Optimal diagnostic cut-offs for CAV, with coronary angiography as gold standard, were defined using receiver operating characteristic curves. In total, 36 scans were identified in 17 patients. CAV was present in 17 (46.0%) reference coronary angiograms, at a median of 1.9 years before CCTA. Median NCP (147 vs 58, P < .001), low-density NCP (median 4.5 vs 0.9, P = .003), fibrous plaque (median 76.1 vs 31.1, P = .003), and fibrofatty plaque (median 63.6 vs 27.6, P < .001) volumes were higher in patients with CAV, whereas calcified plaque was not (median 0.0 vs 0.0, P = .510). Visual assessment of CCTA alone was 70.6% sensitive and 100% specific for CAV. The addition of total NCP volume increased sensitivity to 82.4% while maintaining 100% specificity. NCP volume is significantly higher in patients with CAV. The addition of quantitative analysis to visual interpretation improves the sensitivity for detecting CAV without reducing specificity. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is an increasingly important complication after cardiac transplant. We assessed the additive diagnostic benefit of quantitative plaque analysis in patients undergoing coronary computed tomography–angiography (CCTA). Consecutive patients undergoing CCTA for CAV surveillance were identified. Scans were visually interpreted for coronary stenosis. Semiautomated software was used to quantify noncalcified plaque (NCP), as well as its components. Optimal diagnostic cut-offs for CAV, with coronary angiography as gold standard, were defined using receiver operating characteristic curves. In total, 36 scans were identified in 17 patients. CAV was present in 17 (46.0%) reference coronary angiograms, at a median of 1.9 years before CCTA. Median NCP (147 vs 58, P < .001), low-density NCP (median 4.5 vs 0.9, P = .003), fibrous plaque (median 76.1 vs 31.1, P = .003), and fibrofatty plaque (median 63.6 vs 27.6, P < .001) volumes were higher in patients with CAV, whereas calcified plaque was not (median 0.0 vs 0.0, P = .510). Visual assessment of CCTA alone was 70.6% sensitive and 100% specific for CAV. The addition of total NCP volume increased sensitivity to 82.4% while maintaining 100% specificity. NCP volume is significantly higher in patients with CAV. The addition of quantitative analysis to visual interpretation improves the sensitivity for detecting CAV without reducing specificity.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207