ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Interrater variability of ML-based CT-FFR during TAVR-planning: influence of image quality and coronary artery calcifications.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence based fractional flow reserve.Cardiology journal · 2025Review
- Interrater Variability of ML-Based CT-FFR in Patients without Obstructive CAD before TAVR: Influence of Image Quality, Coronary Artery Calcifications, and Location of Measurement.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare machine learning (ML)-based CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) in patients before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) by observers with differing training and to assess influencing factors. Background: Coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) can effectively exclude CAD, e.g. prior to TAVR, but remains limited by its specificity. CT-FFR may mitigate this limitation also in patients prior to TAVR. While a high reliability of CT-FFR is presumed, little is known about the reproducibility of ML-based CT-FFR. Methods: Consecutive patients with obstructive CAD on cCTA were evaluated with ML-based CT-FFR by two observers. Categorization into hemodynamically significant CAD was compared against invasive coronary angiography. The influence of image quality and coronary artery calcium score (CAC) was examined. Results: CT-FFR was successfully performed on 214/272 examinations by both observers. The median difference of CT-FFR between both observers was -0.05(-0.12-0.02) ( Conclusion: Differences between CT-FFR values increased in values below the cut-off, having little clinical impact. Categorization into CAD differed in several patients, but ultimately only had a moderate influence on diagnostic accuracy. This was independent of image quality or CAC.
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.