483 CORONARY ATHEROSCLEROSIS PHENOTYPES IN FOCAL AND DIFFUSE DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The pathophysiological interplay between coronary physiology and plaque characteristics remains poorly understood. Pullback pressure gradient (PPG) is a novel physiological index that discriminates focal from diffuse coronary artery disease (CAD) based on coronary physiology. We aimed to compare plaque characteristics using between atherosclerotic patterns defined by coronary physiology. Methods Multicenter, prospective, controlled, single-arm study conducted in five countries (NCT03782688). Patients with functionally significant lesions based on invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR<0.80) were included. Subjects underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) with quantitative plaque analysis followed by an invasive procedure with optical coherence tomography (OCT) and motorized intracoronary pressure recordings. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) pullback curves were processed to calculate the PPG. The PPG ranges from 0, indicating diffuse disease, to 1, pointing to focal CAD. Focal and diffuse CAD were defined according to the median PPG value. Results Overall, 117 patients (120 vessels) were included. The mean age was 64±9, 80% were male, and 22% had diabetes (no difference between focal vs. diffuse). Median PPG was 0.66 [0.54, 0.75]. In CCTA analysis, the plaque burden at minimum lumen area was higher in patients with focal CAD (87±8% focal vs. 82±10% diffuse, p=0.003). Calcifications were significantly more prevalent in patients with diffuse CAD (Agatston score per vessel 50 [9, 166] focal vs. 151 [46, 360] diffuse, p=0.019). In OCT plaque analysis, patients with focal CAD had a significantly higher prevalence of circumferential lipid-rich plaque (37% focal vs. 4% diffuse, p=0.001) and thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA 47% focal vs. 10% diffuse, p=0.002). High PPG predicted the presence of TCFA with an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.87). PPG and fibrous cap thickness were negatively correlated (r=-0.55, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.28) independently of FFR. Conclusions Atherosclerotic plaque phenotypes associate with intracoronary hemodynamics. Vessels with focal disease (high PPG) had a higher plaque burden and predominantly lipid-rich plaque with a high prevalence of TCFA, whereas calcifications were the hallmark of vessels with diffuse pressure loss.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".