MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319079908 · doi:10.1186/s12872-023-03088-z

Clinical significance of the hemodynamic gain index in patients undergoing exercise stress testing and coronary computed tomography angiography

2023· article· en· W4319079908 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamad Jihad Mansour, Elie Chammas, Michael Winkler, Wael AlJaroudi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cardiovascular Disorders · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngiologyMedicineHemodynamicsCoronary angiographyCardiac surgeryCardiologyComputed tomography angiographyComputed tomographyAngiographyRadiologyInternal medicineVascular surgeryCardiac imagingStress testing (software)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many hemodynamic parameters provide limited information regarding obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) during exercise stress testing particularly when exercise is suboptimal. Hemodynamic gain index (HGI) is a recent sensitive indicator of ischemia and has been associated with increased mortality. This study evaluated the clinical impact of HGI in patients who underwent concomitant exercise stress testing and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). METHODS: A total of 284 consecutive patients from the executive health program between 2010 and 2018 were identified. Resting and peak heart rate (HR) as well as systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements were recorded. Framingham risk score (FRS), Duke treadmill score (DTS) and HGI [Formula: see text] were calculated. The latter was divided into quartiles. CCTA was used as a reference test to detect any CAD. Multivariate analysis and artificial neural network were used to determine the independent predictors of obstructive CAD. RESULTS: Mean age was 53 ± 12 years with 83% male. Mean HGI was 1.74 ± 0.67, with cut-off value of severely blunted HGI ≤ 1.25 (Quartile 4). Patients with severely blunted HGI were older, had higher FRS, and worse DTS. Patients with obstructive CAD had lower HGI when compared to those with normal CCTA/non-obstructive CAD (1.36 ± 0.53 vs. 1.77 ± 0.67, P = 0.005), and showed a higher prevalence of severely blunted HGI (44% vs. 22%, P = 0.019). After adjusting for traditional risk factors, HGI remained an independent predictor of obstructive CAD while severely blunted HGI was associated with threefold increased odds of having obstructive CAD (P = 0.05). Using artificial intelligence analysis, severely blunted HGI independently predicted obstructive CAD with an area under the curve of 0.83 and 0.96, and normalized importance of HGI of 100% and 63%, respectively for different models. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent concomitant exercise stress testing and CCTA, severely blunted HGI independently predicted obstructive CAD after multivariate adjustment for traditional risk factors.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Cardiovascular DisordersSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207