ArticleHeliyon2023
Comparison of prognostic value between CAD-RADS 1.0 and CAD-RADS 2.0 evaluated by convolutional neural networks based CCTA.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Value Of Deep Learning Based RCA PCAT and Plaque Volume Beyond CT-FFR In Patients With Stent ImplantationCurrent medical imaging · 2025Article
- Association of the triglyceride glucose index with myocardial ischemia in patients with minimal to moderate coronary artery disease.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Lack of incremental prognostic value of triglyceride glucose index beyond coronary computed tomography angiography features for major events.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of the present study was to investigate the prognostic value of the novel coronary artery disease reporting and data system (CAD-RADS) 2.0 compared with CAD-RADS 1.0 in patients with suspectedcoronary artery disease (CAD) evaluated by convolutional neural networks (CNN) based coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Methods: A total of 1796 consecutive inpatients with suspected CAD were evaluated by CCTA for CAD-RADS 1.0 and CAD-RADS 2.0 classifications. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox models were used to estimate major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) inclusive of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction (MI). The C-statistic was used to assess the discriminatory ability of the two classifications. Results: In total, 94 (5.2%) MACE occurred over the median follow-up of 45.25 months (interquartile range 43.53-46.63 months). The annualized MACE rate was 0.014 ( Conclusions: The novel CAD-RADS 2.0 evaluated by CNN-based CCTA showed higher prognostic value of MACE than CAD-RADS 1.0 in patients with suspected CAD.
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.