MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319459784 · doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2022.11.015

Second-Line Myocardial Perfusion Imaging to Detect Obstructive Stenosis

2023· article· en· W4319459784 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Research Fund of Central Denmark RegionCircle Cardiovascular ImagingRegion MidtjyllandNovo Nordisk FondenNovo NordiskSanofiAarhus UniversitetPfizerAmgen
KeywordsStenosisMedicineCardiologyMyocardial perfusion imagingPerfusionInternal medicinePerfusion scanningRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend verification of myocardial ischemia by selective second-line myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) following a coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) with suspected obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Head-to-head data on the diagnostic performance of different MPI modalities in this setting are sparse. OBJECTIVES: rubidium positron emission tomography (RbPET) in patients with suspected obstructive stenosis at coronary CTA using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) with fractional flow reserve (FFR) as reference. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n = 1,732, mean age: 59.1 ± 9.5 years, 57.2% men) referred for coronary CTA with symptoms suggestive of obstructive CAD were included. Patients with suspected stenosis were referred for both CMR and RbPET and subsequently ICA. Obstructive CAD was defined as FFR ≤0.80 or >90% diameter stenosis by visual assessment. RESULTS: In total, 445 patients had suspected stenosis on coronary CTA. Of these, 372 patients completed both CMR, RbPET and subsequent ICA with FFR. Hemodynamically obstructive CAD was identified in 164 of 372 (44.1%) patients. Sensitivities for CMR and RbPET were 59% (95% CI: 51%-67%) and 64% (95% CI: 56%-71%); P = 0.21, respectively, and specificities 84% (95% CI: 78%-89%) and 89% (95% CI: 84%-93%]); P = 0.08, respectively. Overall accuracy was higher for RbPET compared with CMR (73% vs 78%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected obstructive stenosis at coronary CTA, CMR, and RbPET show similar and moderate sensitivities but high specificities compared with ICA with FFR. This patient group represents a diagnostic challenge with frequent mismatch between advanced MPI tests and invasive measurements. (Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 [Dan-NICAD 2]; NCT03481712).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · 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