Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34697554›Full record

ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2021

Comparing the Prognostic Value of Stress Myocardial Perfusion Imaging by Conventional and Cadmium-Zinc Telluride Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography through a Machine Learning Approach.

Valeria Cantoni, Roberta Green, Carlo Ricciardi, Roberta Assante, Leandro Donisi, Emilia Zampella, Giuseppe Cesarelli, Carmela Nappi, Vincenzo Sannino, Valeria Gaudieri and 8 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Valeria CantoniDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3802-3104
Roberta GreenDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2659-2318
Carlo RicciardiDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7290-6432
Roberta AssanteDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Leandro DonisiDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Emilia ZampellaDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Giuseppe CesarelliBioengineering Unit, Institute of Care and Scientific Research Maugeri, Telese Terme, Campania, Italy.
Carmela NappiDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Vincenzo SanninoDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Valeria GaudieriDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Teresa MannarinoDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Andrea GenovaDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Giovanni De SiminiDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Alessia GiordanoDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Adriana D'AntonioDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Wanda AcampaDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Mario PetrettaIRCCS SDN, Naples, Italy.
Alberto CuocoloDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
University of Naples Federico II · ITIstituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri · ITInstitute of Biostructure and Bioimaging · ITSDN Istituto di Ricerca Diagnostica e Nucleare · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We compared the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) by conventional- (C-) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and cadmium-zinc-telluride- (CZT-) SPECT in a cohort of patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD) using machine learning (ML) algorithms. A total of 453 consecutive patients underwent stress MPI by both C-SPECT and CZT-SPECT. The outcome was a composite end point of all-cause death, cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization procedures whichever occurred first. ML analysis performed through the implementation of random forest (RF) and

Indexed as

Machine LearningAgedAlgorithmsCadmiumComputational BiologyCoronary Artery DiseaseExercise TestFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial Perfusion ImagingNeural Networks, ComputerPrognosisTelluriumTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonCadmiumCdZnTeTelluriumZinc

Identifiers

PMID34697554
PMCPMC8541857
OpenAlexW3207355820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.