Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: The evidence - A consensus conference organised by the British Cardiac Society, the British Nuclear Cardiology Society and the British Nuclear Medicine Society, endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians of London and the Royal College of Radiologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review summarises the evidence for the role of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. It is the product of a consensus conference organised by the British Cardiac Society, the British Nuclear Cardiology Society and the British Nuclear Medicine Society and is endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians of London and the Royal College of Radiologists. It was used to inform the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence in their appraisal of MPS in patients with chest pain and myocardial infarction. MPS is a well-established, non-invasive imaging technique with a large body of evidence to support its effectiveness in the diagnosis and management of angina and myocardial infarction. It is more accurate than the exercise ECG in detecting myocardial ischaemia and it is the single most powerful technique for predicting future coronary events. The high diagnostic accuracy of MPS allows reliable risk stratification and guides the selection of patients for further interventions, such as revascularisation. This in turn allows more appropriate utilisation of resources, with the potential for both improved clinical outcomes and greater cost-effectiveness. Evidence from modelling and observational studies supports the enhanced cost-effectiveness associated with MPS use. In patients presenting with stable or acute chest pain, strategies of investigation involving MPS are more cost-effective than those not using the technique. MPS also has particular advantages over alternative techniques in the management of a number of patient subgroups, including women, the elderly and those with diabetes, and its use will have a favourable impact on cost-effectiveness in these groups. MPS is already an integral part of many clinical guidelines for the investigation and management of angina and myocardial infarction. However, the technique is underutilised in the UK, as judged by the inappropriately long waiting times and by comparison with the numbers of revascularisations and coronary angiograms performed. Furthermore, MPS activity levels in this country fall far short of those in comparable European countries, with about half as many scans being undertaken per year. Currently, the number of MPS studies performed annually in the UK is 1,200/million population/year. We estimate the real need to be 4,000/million/year. The current average waiting time is 20 weeks and we recommend that clinically appropriate upper limits of waiting time are 6 weeks for routine studies and 1 week for urgent studies.
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 | 0.029 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".