D-54 | Validation of the J-Channel Score for Retrograde Channel Crossing in the PROGRESS-CTO registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
J-Channel score was developed based on the Japanese expert registry to predict successful collateral channel crossing for retrograde chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We evaluated the external validity of J-Channel score in an international registry (PROGRESS-CTO [NCT02061436]). Mean age was 62.7 ± 10.2 years, and most patients were men (81.1%). The most common target vessel was the right coronary artery (80.2%), followed by the left anterior descending coronary artery (15.6%) and left circumflex coronary artery (4.2%). Mean J-CTO score and PROGRESS-CTO scores were 2.92 ± 1.06 and 1.07 ± 0.82, respectively. The most common CC type was septal (81%), followed by non-septal CC (epicardial CC [17.4%], bypass graft CC [1.5%]). When compared with the derivation population, the PROGRESS-CTO patients had lower CC wire crossing success for easy difficulty grade based on both septal and non-septal J-Channel scores, and higher CC wire crossing success rates for intermediate and difficult grades (Figure 1 A, B). The discriminative capacities (C-statistic) of the J-Channel score in the PROGRESS-CTO registry were: 0.65 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.63-0.68) for successful wire crossing (Figure 1C), and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.63-0.68) for successful microcatheter crossing (Figure 1D). The interrater reliability (Κ-statistic) of the J-Channel score were: 0.41 (p<0.001) for septal and 0.43 (p=0.005) non-septal CCs. The predictive efficacy of J-Channel score was modest for both wire and microcatheter crossing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.131 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".