ArticleYonsei medical journal2020
Diagnostic Accuracy of a Novel On-site Virtual Fractional Flow Reserve Parallel Computing System.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging quantitative CCTA imaging biomarkers for cardiovascular risk stratification: a narrative review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Detection of 3D Arterial Centerline Extraction in Spiral CT Coronary Angiography.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a novel on-site virtual fractional flow reserve (vFFR) derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed 100 vessels from 57 patients who had undergone CTA followed by invasive FFR during coronary angiography. Coronary lumen segmentation and three-dimensional reconstruction were conducted using a completely automated algorithm, and parallel computing based vFFR prediction was performed. Lesion-specific ischemia based on FFR was defined as significant at ≤0.8, as well as ≤0.75, and obstructive CTA stenosis was defined that ≥50%. The diagnostic performance of vFFR was compared to invasive FFR at both ≤0.8 and ≤0.75.
resultsThe average computation time was 12 minutes per patient. The correlation coefficient (r) between vFFR and invasive FFR was 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 0.83], and Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias of 0.005 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.021) with 95% limits of agreement of -0.16 to 0.17 between vFFR and FFR. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 78.0%, 87.1%, 72.5%, 58.7%, and 92.6%, respectively, using the FFR cutoff of 0.80. They were 87.0%, 95.0%, 80.0%, 54.3%, and 98.5%, respectively, with the FFR cutoff of 0.75. The area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve of vFFR versus obstructive CTA stenosis was 0.88 versus 0.61 for the FFR cutoff of 0.80, respectively; it was 0.94 versus 0.62 for the FFR cutoff of 0.75.
conclusionOur novel, fully automated, on-site vFFR technology showed excellent diagnostic performance for the detection of lesion-specific ischemia.
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.