ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Comparison of magnetocardiography and coronary computed tomographic angiography for detection of coronary artery stenosis and the influence of calcium.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Based Magnetocardiography Model Aids in Diagnosing Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome in Acute Chest Pain.Balkan medical journal · 2026Article
- Integration of Magnetocardiography and Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography With Machine Learning for Detection of Functionally Significant Myocardial Ischemia.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Progress in Clinical Magnetocardiography: The Contactless Breakthrough for Noninvasive Clinical Detection of Cardiac Ischemia Now Needs Worldwide Standardization.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Magnetocardiography in diagnosis of MINOCA: a case series.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Prediction of post-PCI angina risk using machine learning-based magnetocardiography model.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Non-invasive mapping of ventricular action potential waveforms reconstructed from clinical unshielded magnetocardiography. Potential diagnostic application and current limitations.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of magnetocardiography as a non-invasive tool for functional assessment of myocardial ischemia in patients with stable coronary artery disease.Frontiers in medical technology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of magnetocardiography (MCG) and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in detecting coronary artery stenosis in relation to coronary calcification.
methodsA total of 587 patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography (ICA) with both CCTA and MCG between September 1, 2022, and August 31, 2023, were included. The patients were divided into three subgroups based on their coronary artery calcium score (CACS), namely less than 100, 100-400, and 400 and above, as determined by the Agatston score. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) of MCG, CCTA, and the combined diagnostic model (CCTA + MCG) were compared across all CACS subgroups.
resultsAccording to ICA, 481 out of 587 patients (81.94%) had ischemia. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of MCG for detecting ischemia was 0.80, with a sensitivity of 74.64% and specificity of 84.91% for all patients. In the different CACS subgroups, the diagnostic specificity of CCTA notably decreased (78.57% vs 24.13% vs 17.46%), while that of MCG remained stable (92.86% vs 86.21% vs 82.54%). The diagnostic accuracy of MCG and the combined diagnostic model was better than that of CCTA when CACS was ≥ 400 (77.22% vs 67.22% vs 58.89%). The AUC values of MCG, CCTA, and the combined model in the CACS ≥ 400 subgroups were 0.78, 0.49, and 0.71, respectively.
conclusionsThe diagnostic performance of MCG is less affected by CACS than that of CCTA. MCG and the combined model demonstrate better performance than CCTA alone in detecting coronary artery stenosis, particularly in cases with CACS ≥ 400. KEY POINTS: Question How does the diagnostic performance of MCG compare with coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) at different levels of calcification scores (CACS)? Findings MCG demonstrated better performance than CCTA in detecting coronary artery stenosis, particularly in patients with high CACS. Clinical relevance MCG or the MCG and CCTA combined model can be used to improve the noninvasive imaging diagnostic performance for detecting coronary artery stenosis and reduce unnecessary ICA, especially for patients with high calcification scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39953149What 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.