MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194636029 · doi:10.3348/kjr.2020.1277

CT Assessment of Myocardial Perfusion and Fractional Flow Reserve in Coronary Artery Disease: A Review of Current Clinical Evidence and Recent Developments

2021· review· en· W3194636029 on OpenAlexaff
Chun‐Ho Yun, Chung‐Lieh Hung, Ming‐Shien Wen, Yung‐Liang Wan, Aaron So

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Journal of Radiology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFractional flow reserveCoronary artery diseaseCADRadiologyMyocardial perfusion imagingCardiologyPerfusion scanningGold standard (test)PerfusionConcomitantInternal medicineCoronary angiographyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is routinely used for anatomical assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, invasive measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the current gold standard for the diagnosis of hemodynamically significant CAD. CT-derived FFRCT and CT perfusion are two emerging techniques that can provide a functional assessment of CAD for risk stratification and clinical decision making. Several clinical studies have shown that the diagnostic performance of concomitant CCTA and functional CT assessment for detecting hemodynamically significant CAD is at least non-inferior to that of other routinely used imaging modalities. This article aims to review the current clinical evidence and recent developments in functional CT techniques.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKorean Journal of RadiologySame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207