ArticleiScience2024
Predicting left ventricular remodeling post-MI through coronary physiological measurements based on computational fluid dynamics.
Article in iScience, 2024. 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.
- Association of the pan-immune-inflammation value with 60-day in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with acute myocardial infarction: evidence from the MIMIC-IV database.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Review
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
Early detection of left ventricular remodeling (LVR) is crucial. While cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) provides valuable information, it has limitations. Coronary angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (caFFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (caIMR) offer viable alternatives. 157 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention were prospectively included. 23.6% of patients showed LVR. Machine learning algorithms constructed three LVR prediction models: Model 1 incorporated clinical and procedural parameters, Model 2 added CMR parameters, and Model 3 included echocardiographic and functional parameters (caFFR and caIMR) with Model 1. The random forest algorithm showed robust performance, achieving AUC of 0.77, 0.84, and 0.85 for Models 1, 2, and 3. SHAP analysis identified top features in Model 2 (infarct size, microvascular obstruction, admission hemoglobin) and Model 3 (current smoking, caFFR, admission hemoglobin). Findings indicate coronary physiology and echocardiographic parameters effectively predict LVR in patients with STEMI, suggesting their potential to replace CMR.
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.