ArticlePLoS currents2013
Use of the Corus® CAD Gene Expression Test for Assessment of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease Likelihood in Symptomatic Non-Diabetic Patients.
Article in PLoS currents, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcriptomics for Clinical and Experimental Biology Research: Hang on a Seq.Advanced genetics (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Review
- Article
- Biomarker discovery studies for patient stratification using machine learning analysis of omics data: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- The potential of using blood circular RNA as liquid biopsy biomarker for human diseases.Protein & cell · 2021Review
- Peripheral blood microRNAs and the COVID-19 patient: methodological considerations, technical challenges and practice points.RNA biology · 2021Review
- New Microbiological Techniques for the Diagnosis of Bacterial Infections and Sepsis in ICU Including Point of Care.Current infectious disease reports · 2021Review
- Review
- Single-Patient Molecular Testing with NanoString nCounter Data Using a Reference-Based Strategy for Batch Effect Correction.PloS one · 2016Article
- A Guide for a Cardiovascular Genomics Biorepository: the CATHGEN Experience.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2015Review
- The diagnosis of CAD in women: addressing the unmet need - a report from the national expert roundtable meeting.Population health management · 2015Review
- Biological and analytical stability of a peripheral blood gene expression score for obstructive coronary artery disease in the PREDICT and COMPASS studies.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The determination of the underlying etiology of symptoms suggestive of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD, ≥50% stenosis in a major coronary artery) is a common clinical challenge in both primary care and cardiology clinics. Usual care in low to medium risk patients often involves a family history, risk factor assessment, and then stress testing with or without non-invasive imaging. If positive, this is often followed by invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Despite extensive adoption of this usual care paradigm, more than 60% of patients referred for angiography do not have obstructive CAD. In order to robustly identify those symptomatic patients without obstructive CAD, who can avoid subsequent cardiac testing and look elsewhere for the cause of their symptoms, a recently described whole blood gene expression score (GES: Corus® CAD, CardioDx, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) has been developed and validated in two multi-center trials. This paper reviews the published literature and assessments by independent parties regarding the analytical and clinical validity as well as the clinical utility of the Corus® CAD test.
Identifiers
24043473PMC3770834W2118089552What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.