MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4306254506 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.205

Anatomic and functional discordance among patients with non-obstructive coronary disease

2022· article· en· W4306254506 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer A. Rymer, Hidenobu Takagi, Lynne Koweek, Nicholas Ng, Pamela S. Douglas, Timothy Fairbairn, D Berman, Bernard De Bruyne, Jeroen J. Bax, Koen Nieman, Campbell Rogers, B L Noorgaard, M R Patel, J. Leipsic, Melissa A. Daubert

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseMyocardial infarctionRevascularizationStenosisFractional flow reserveCoronary angiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Non-obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with increased adverse cardiovascular (CV) events. However, it is unclear if functional stenosis, as assessed by FFRCT <0.80, further stratifies risk among patients with non-obstructive CAD and which factors contribute to this anatomic-functional discordance (stenosis <50% and FFRCT <0.80). Purpose We hypothesized that patients with anatomically non-obstructive CAD by CTA and an abnormal FFRCT value of ≤0.80 have a phenomenon termed anatomic-functional discordance, and this discordance would be associated with increased adverse outcomes. Methods Patients in the ADVANCE (Assessing Diagnostic Value of Non-invasive FFRCT in Coronary Care) Registry who had exclusively non-obstructive CAD (anatomic stenosis <50%) were stratified by FFRCT >0.80 in all coronary vessels (concordant) vs. FFRCT <0.80 in at least one vessel (discordant). Baseline patient demographics, coronary computed tomography angiography findings, downstream testing and clinical outcomes were compared between groups. The primary composite endpoint included revascularization, CV hospitalization, heart failure, arrhythmia, non-fatal myocardial infarction, unplanned hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome leading to urgent revascularization, and all-cause death. Results Among 1,261 patients with non-obstructive CAD, 543 (43.1%) had functional stenosis with FFRCT <0.80. Patients in the discordant group were older, more likely to have hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and had significantly higher indexed left ventricular (LV) mass and significantly lower coronary volume-to-mass ratios when compared with patients in the concordant group. Downstream non-invasive testing was more common among patients with discordance (35.9% vs 20.2%, p<0.0001) and more frequently resulted in a positive downstream test (10.3% vs. 3.3%, p<0.0001). Invasive angiography was also more common among patients with discordance (25.2% vs. 11.6%, p<0.0001). Anatomic-functional discordance was associated with higher rates of CV hospitalization and percutaneous coronary intervention (both p<0.0001), but no significant difference in all-cause death. After adjustment, anatomic-functional discordance was associated with a significantly higher risk of the composite endpoint (adjusted HR 2.79, 95% CI 1.67–4.65), Figure 1. As shown in Figure 2, the more vessels with anatomic-functional discordance, the higher the rate of adverse cardiac events. Conclusion Anatomic-functional discordance was present in nearly half of patients with exclusively non-obstructive CAD. The lower coronary volume: LV mass ratio may reflect abnormal coronary physiology at lower thresholds of anatomical stenosis among those with discordance. Compared to patients with concordance, patients with discordance had worse clinical outcomes suggesting that anatomic-functional discordance may stratify risk for adverse CV events among patients with non-obstructive CAD. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Other. Main funding source(s): The analysis was an investigator-initiated analysis sponsored by Heart Flow.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→