MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035237432 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/jeaa048

Non-obstructive high-risk plaques increase the risk of future culprit lesions comparable to obstructive plaques without high-risk features: the ICONIC study

2020· article· en· W3035237432 on OpenAlex
Richard Ferraro, Alexander R. van Rosendael, Yao Lu, Daniele Andreini, Mouaz H. Al‐Mallah, Filippo Cademartiri, Kavitha M. Chinnaiyan, Benjamin J.W. Chow, Edoardo Conte, Ricardo C. Cury, Gudrun Feuchtner, Pedro de Araújo Gonçalves, Martin Hadamitzky, Yong‐Jin Kim, Jonathon Leipsic, Erica Maffei, Hugo Marques, Fabian Plank, Gianluca Pontone, Gilbert Raff, Todd C. Villines, Sang‐Eun Lee, Subhi J. Al’Aref, Lohendran Baskaran, Iksung Cho, Ibrahim Danad, Heidi Gransar, Matthew J. Budoff, Habib Samady, Peter H. Stone, Renu Virmani, Jagat Narula, Daniel S. Berman, Hyuk‐Jae Chang, Jeroen J. Bax, James K. Min, Leslee J. Shaw, Fay Y. Lin

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

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsCulpritMedicineInterquartile rangeLesionCardiologyInternal medicineConfidence intervalStenosisCoronary artery diseaseHazard ratioCalcificationAcute coronary syndromeRadiologyPathologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: High-risk plaque (HRP) and non-obstructive coronary artery disease independently predict adverse events, but their importance to future culprit lesions has not been resolved. We sought to determine in patients prior to confirmed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) the association between lesion percent diameter stenosis (%DS), and the absolute number and prevalence of HRP. The secondary objective was to examine the relative importance of non-obstructive HRP in future culprit lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Within the ICONIC study, a nested case-control study of patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography (coronary CT), we included ACS cases with culprit lesions confirmed by invasive coronary angiography and coregistered to baseline coronary CT. Quantitative CT was used to evaluate obstructive (≥50%) and non-obstructive (<50%) diameter stenosis, with HRP defined as ≥2 features of spotty calcification, positive remodelling, or low-attenuation plaque at baseline. A total of 234 patients with downstream ACS over 54 (interquartile range 5-525.5) days exhibited 198/898 plaques with HRP on coronary CT. While HRP was less prevalent in non-obstructive (19.7%, 161/819) than obstructive lesions (46.8%, 37/79, P < 0.001), non-obstructive plaque comprised 81.3% (161/198) of HRP lesions overall. Among the 128 patients with identifiable culprit lesion precursors, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 1.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-2.72] for HRP, with no interaction between %DS and HRP (P = 0.82). Compared to non-obstructive HRP lesions, obstructive lesions without HRP exhibited a non-significant HR of 1.41 (95% CI 0.61-3.25, P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: While HRP is more prevalent among obstructive lesions, non-obstructive HRP lesions outnumber those that are obstructive and confer risk clinically approaching that of obstructive lesions without HRP.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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