ArticleJournal of biomechanics2017
Model-based cap thickness and peak cap stress prediction for carotid MRI.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A rupture-prone carotid plaque can potentially be identified by calculating the peak cap stress (PCS). For these calculations, plaque geometry from MRI is often used. Unfortunately, MRI is hampered by a low resolution, leading to an overestimation of cap thickness and an underestimation of PCS. We developed a model to reconstruct the cap based on plaque geometry to better predict cap thickness and PCS. We used histological stained plaques from 34 patients. These plaques were segmented and served as the ground truth. Sections of these plaques contained 93 necrotic cores with a cap thickness <0.62mm which were used to generate a geometry-based model. The histological data was used to simulate in vivo MRI images, which were manually delineated by three experienced MRI readers. Caps below the MRI resolution (n=31) were (digitally removed and) reconstructed according to the geometry-based model. Cap thickness and PCS were determined for the ground truth, readers, and reconstructed geometries. Cap thickness was 0.07mm for the ground truth, 0.23mm for the readers, and 0.12mm for the reconstructed geometries. The model predicts cap thickness significantly better than the readers. PCS was 464kPa for the ground truth, 262kPa for the readers and 384kPa for the reconstructed geometries. The model did not predict the PCS significantly better than the readers. The geometry-based model provided a significant improvement for cap thickness estimation and can potentially help in rupture-risk prediction, solely based on cap thickness. Estimation of PCS estimation did not improve, probably due to the complex shape of the plaques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.