ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2023
A highly predictive cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) risk score for 90-day and one-year major adverse cardiac events and revascularization.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2023. 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.
- Multicenter evaluation of interpretable AI for coronary artery disease diagnosis from PET biomarkers.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- From Echo to Coronary Angiography: Optimizing Ischemia Evaluation Through Multimodal Imaging.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the increase in cardiac PET/CT availability and utilization, the development of a PET/CT-based major adverse cardiovascular events, including death, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization (MACE-Revasc) risk assessment score is needed. Here we develop a highly predictive PET/CT-based risk score for 90-day and one-year MACE-Revasc. METHODS AND
results11,552 patients had a PET/CT from 2015 to 2017 and were studied for the training and development set. PET/CT from 2018 was used to validate the derived scores (n = 5049). Patients were on average 65 years old, half were male, and a quarter had a prior MI or revascularization. Baseline characteristics and PET/CT results were used to derive the MACE-Revasc risk models, resulting in models with 5 and 8 weighted factors. The PET/CT 90-day MACE-Revasc risk score trended toward outperforming ischemic burden alone [P = .07 with an area under the curve (AUC) 0.85 vs 0.83]. The PET/CT one-year MACE-Revasc score was better than the use of ischemic burden alone (P < .0001, AUC 0.80 vs 0.76). Both PET/CT MACE-Revasc risk scores outperformed risk prediction by cardiologists.
conclusionThe derived PET/CT 90-day and one-year MACE-Revasc risk scores were highly predictive and outperformed ischemic burden and cardiologist assessment. These scores are easy to calculate, lending to straightforward clinical implementation and should be further tested for clinical usefulness.
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.