MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 11731: Efficacy of a New Generation Fast-Pullback, High-Frequency Intracoronary Optical Coherence Tomography Imaging on the Reduction of Contrast Medium in Clinical Practice

2023· article· en· W4389953493 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shiro Uemura, Takeshi Nishi, Giovanni J. Ughi, Hiroaki Okamoto, Ryotaro Yamada, Teruyoshi Kume

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOptical coherence tomographyPercutaneous coronary interventionFractional flow reservePullbackCoronary artery diseaseConventional PCIRadiologyCardiologyInternal medicineCoronary angiographyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Intracoronary optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an imaging modality that uses near-infrared light to generate high-resolution images, and now plays an important role in research and clinical practice as it provides insights into vascular biology and diagnostic guidance for percutaneous intervention (PCI). An existing concern is that OCT imaging could increase the total amount of contrast media administered during the procedure, resulting in adverse outcomes such as impairment of renal function or worsening of heart failure in some patients. Aims: We sought to investigate whether a novel, fast-pullback, high-frequency OCT (HF-OCT) enables acquisitions with a reduced amount of contrast agents while retaining the same qualitative and quantitative lesion assessment to conventional OCT. Methods: This study is a single-center, prospective, observational study including 10 patients with stable coronary artery disease. A total of 28 individual coronary arteries were assessed by both fast-pullback HF-OCT and by conventional OCT. The fast-pullback, HF-OCT system consists of a 1.8-Fr Vis-Rx® Micro-Imaging Catheter and an HF-OCT Imaging console (Gentuity LLC, Sudbury, MA). Results: The contrast volume used in each OCT run for the HF-OCT system was significantly lower than for the conventional OCT system (5.0±0.0 vs. 7.8±0.7ml, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in the median value of the clear image length between the 2 OCT systems (74 mm [IQR; 63, 81], 74 mm [IQR; 71, 75], P=0.89). Fast-pullback HF-OCT showed comparable measurements to conventional OCT, including minimum lumen area (3.27±1.53 vs. 3.21±1.53 mm2, P=0.27), proximal reference area (7.03±2.28 vs. 7.03±2.34 mm2, P=0.96), and distal reference area (5.93±1.96 vs. 6.03±2.02 mm2, P=0.23). Qualitative OCT findings were comparable between the fast-pullback HF-OCT runs and conventional OCT with respect to identifying lipid-rich plaques, calcifications, layered plaques, macrophages, and cholesterol crystals. Conclusions: With the fast pullback function of a novel HF-OCT imaging system, we acquired OCT images using a significantly lower amount of contrast volume while retaining a comparable qualitative and quantitative lesion assessment to conventional OCT.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→