MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387600012 · doi:10.1007/s00330-023-10223-z

Combination of computed tomography angiography with coronary artery calcium score for improved diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of stable chest pain patients referred for invasive coronary angiography

2023· review· en· W4387600012 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmoud Mohamed, Maria Bosserdt, Viktoria Wieske, B. Dubourg, Hatem Alkadhi, Mario J. García, Sebastian Leschka, Elke Zimmermann, Abbas Arjmand Shabestari, Bjarne Linde Nørgaard, Matthijs F.L. Meijs, Kristian Altern Øvrehus, Axel Cosmus Pyndt Diederichsen, Juhani Knuuti, Bjørn Halvorsen, Vladymir Mendoza-Rodriguez, Yung‐Liang Wan, Nuno Bettencourt, Eugenio Martuscelli, Ronny R. Buechel, Hans Mickley, Kai Sun, Simone Muraglia, Philipp A. Kaufmann, Bernhard A. Herzog, Jean‐Claude Tardif, G Schütz, Michael Laule, David E. Newby, Stephan Achenbach, Matthew J. Budoff, Robert Haase, Federico Biavati, Aldo Vásquez Mézquita, Peter Schlattmann, Marc Dewey

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Radiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersCharité – Universitätsmedizin BerlinBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseChest painNeuroradiologyRadiologyInternal medicineInterventional radiologyCardiologyCoronary angiographyAngiographyUltrasoundComputed tomography angiographyNeurologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has higher diagnostic accuracy than coronary artery calcium (CAC) score for detecting obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with stable chest pain, while the added diagnostic value of combining CCTA with CAC is unknown. We investigated whether combining coronary CCTA with CAC score can improve the diagnosis of obstructive CAD compared with CCTA alone. METHODS: A total of 2315 patients (858 women, 37%) aged 61.1 ± 10.2 from 29 original studies were included to build two CAD prediction models based on either CCTA alone or CCTA combined with the CAC score. CAD was defined as at least 50% coronary diameter stenosis on invasive coronary angiography. Models were built by using generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept set for the original study. The two CAD prediction models were compared by the likelihood ratio test, while their diagnostic performance was compared using the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC). Net benefit (benefit of true positive versus harm of false positive) was assessed by decision curve analysis. RESULTS: CAD prevalence was 43.5% (1007/2315). Combining CCTA with CAC improved CAD diagnosis compared with CCTA alone (AUC: 87% [95% CI: 86 to 89%] vs. 80% [95% CI: 78 to 82%]; p < 0.001), likelihood ratio test 236.3, df: 1, p < 0.001, showing a higher net benefit across almost all threshold probabilities. CONCLUSION: Adding the CAC score to CCTA findings in patients with stable chest pain improves the diagnostic performance in detecting CAD and the net benefit compared with CCTA alone. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: CAC scoring CT performed before coronary CTA and included in the diagnostic model can improve obstructive CAD diagnosis, especially when CCTA is non-diagnostic. KEY POINTS: • The combination of coronary artery calcium with coronary computed tomography angiography showed significantly higher AUC (87%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 86 to 89%) for diagnosis of coronary artery disease compared to coronary computed tomography angiography alone (80%, 95% CI: 78 to 82%, p < 0.001). • Diagnostic improvement was mostly seen in patients with non-diagnostic C. • The improvement in diagnostic performance and the net benefit was consistent across age groups, chest pain types, and genders.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.010
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean RadiologySame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207