ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
A Novel Method for Angiographic Contrast-Based Diagnosis of Stenosis in Coronary Artery Disease: In Vivo and In Vitro Analyses.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep learning models for predicting heart disease risk using the UCI database: methods, performance, and clinical context.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe existing diagnostic methods for coronary artery disease (CAD), such as coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve (FFR), have limitations regarding their invasiveness, cost, and discomfort. We explored a novel diagnostic approach, coronary contrast intensity analysis (CCIA), and conducted a comparative analysis between it and FFR.
methodsWe used an in vitro coronary-circulation-mimicking system with nine stenosis models representing various stenosis lengths (6, 18, and 30 mm) and degrees (30%, 50%, and 70%). The angiographic brightness values were analyzed for CCIA. The in vivo experiments included 15 patients with a normal sinus rhythm. Coronary angiography was performed, and arterial movement was tracked, enabling CCIA derivation. The CCIA values were compared with the FFR (
resultsIn vitro FFR showed a consistent trend related to the length and severity of stenosis. The CCIA was related to stenosis but had a weaker correlation with length, except for with 70% stenosis (6 mm: 0.82 ± 0.007, 0.68 ± 0.007, 0.61 ± 0.004; 18 mm: 0.78 ± 0.052, 0.69 ± 0.025, 0.44 ± 0.016; 30 mm: 0.80 ± 0.018, 0.64 ± 0.006, 0.40 ± 0.026 at 30%, 50%, and 70%, respectively). In vitro CCIA and FFR were significantly correlated (R = 0.9442,
conclusionsCCIA is a promising alternative for diagnosing stenosis in patients with CAD. The initial in vitro validation and in vivo confirmation in patients demonstrate the feasibility of applying CCIA during coronary angiography. Further clinical studies are warranted to fully evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and potential impact of CCIA on CAD management.
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.