MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410337389 · doi:10.25270/jic/25.00089

Artificial Intelligence for Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

2025· article· en· W4410337389 on OpenAlexaff
Athanasios Rempakos, Paola Pilla, Michaella Alexandrou, Deniz Mutlu, Dimitrios Strepkos, Pedro E P Carvalho, Özgür Selim Ser, Ali Bahbah, Amit Amin, Anand Prasad, Lorenzo Azzalini, Luiz F. Ybarra, Olga Mastrodemos, Bavana V. Rangan, Ahmed Al‐Ogaili, Sandeep Jalli, M. Nicholas Burke, Yader Sandoval, Emmanouil S. Brilakis

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œJournal of invasive cardiology/˜The œjournal of invasive cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronary occlusionPercutaneous coronary interventionPsychological interventionPercutaneousMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineOcclusionMyocardial infarctionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become pivotal in advancing medical care, particularly in interventional cardiology. Recent AI developments have proven effective in guiding advanced procedures and complex decisions. The authors review the latest AI-based innovations in the diagnosis of chronic total occlusions (CTO) and in determining the probability of success of CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Neural networks and deep learning strategies were the most commonly used algorithms, and the models were trained and deployed using a variety of data types, such as clinical parameters and imaging. AI holds great promise in facilitating CTO PCI.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œJournal of invasive cardiology/˜The œjournal of invasive cardiologySame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207