Coronary Atherosclerosis Phenotypes in Focal and Diffuse Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The interplay between coronary hemodynamics and plaque characteristics remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare atherosclerotic plaque phenotypes between focal and diffuse coronary artery disease (CAD) defined by coronary hemodynamics. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm study was conducted in 5 countries. Patients with functionally significant lesions based on an invasive fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 were included. Plaque analysis was performed by using coronary computed tomography angiography and optical coherence tomography. CAD patterns were assessed using motorized fractional flow reserve pullbacks and quantified by pullback pressure gradient (PPG). Focal and diffuse CAD was defined according to the median PPG value. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients (120 vessels) were included. The median PPG was 0.66 (IQR: 0.54-0.75). According to coronary computed tomography angiography analysis, plaque burden 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: 51 [IQR: 11-204] focal vs 158 [IQR: 52-341] diffuse; P = 0.024). According to optical coherence tomography 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). Focal disease defined by PPG predicted the presence of TCFA with an area under the curve of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.58-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Atherosclerotic plaque phenotypes associate with intracoronary hemodynamics. Focal CAD had a higher plaque burden and was predominantly lipid-rich with a high prevalence of TCFA, whereas calcifications were more prevalent in diffuse CAD. (Precise Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Plan [P3]; NCT03782688).
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".