Vessel‐Specific Myocardial Mass in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Assessing the myocardial mass at risk is essential in evaluating patients with coronary artery disease. This study aims to establish reference values for vessel‐specific myocardial mass derived from coronary computed tomography angiography, providing a quantitative assessment of the myocardial mass subtended by each epicardial vessel. Methods Left ventricular (LV) and vessel‐specific myocardial mass were calculated from coronary computed tomography angiography using the Voronoi method in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Myocardial mass was quantified for each epicardial coronary artery with a diameter >1.5 mm. Results We included 948 patients with 9228 epicardial coronary artery branches. Mean age was 66±9 years. The cohort was predominantly male (77%); 66% had hypertension, and 22% had diabetes. Vessel‐specific myocardial mass was calculated for 2767 main epicardial arteries (948 left anterior descending, 948 left circumflex, and 871 right coronary artery) and 6461 side branches (1888 diagonals, 1208 septals, 1422 obtuse marginals, 247 ramus intermedius, 850 right posterior descending, and 846 posterolateral branches). Median LV mass was 141 grams (interquartile range 118–166); women had smaller LV mass than men (106 [93–123] grams versus 150 [132–173] grams, P <0.001). On average, the left anterior descending subtended 42.5% [37.9–48.1] of LV mass, the left circumflex artery 28.8% [21.9–5.7], and the right coronary artery 26.4% [20.9–31.9]. Median LV mass subtended by the first septal, first diagonal, and first obtuse marginal were 8.9% [6.4–11.1], 7.9% [4.52–2.0], and 10.2% [4.52–12.0], respectively. Conclusions This study quantified the myocardial mass subtended by each major artery in the coronary circulation. Understanding the vessel‐specific mass at risk has significant clinical implications for personalizing revascularization strategies. Registration This is a retrospective analysis of 5 prospectively conducted trials (P3: NCT03782688; P4: NCT05253677; PPG Global: NCT04789317; Euro‐CRAFT: NCT05805462; INSIGHTFUL‐FFR: NCT05437900). No additional registration was required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".