Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40913426›Full record

ArticleFASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology2025

Assessment of Myocardial Injury Size Metrics Using Carotid Pressure Waveform: Proof-of-Concept in Coronary Occlusion/Reperfusion Rat Model.

Jiajun Li, Rashid Alavi, Wangde Dai, Ray V Matthews, Robert A Kloner, Niema M Pahlevan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Assessment of Myocardial Injury Size Metrics Using Carotid Pressure Waveform: Proof-of-Concept in Coronary Occlusion/Reperfusion Rat Model.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jiajun LiDepartment of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Rashid AlaviDepartment of Medical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1179-7089
Wangde DaiCardiovascular Research Institute, Huntington Medical Research Institutes, Pasadena, California, USA.
Ray V MatthewsDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Robert A KlonerCardiovascular Research Institute, Huntington Medical Research Institutes, Pasadena, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6258-0544
Niema M PahlevanDepartment of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7498-0396

Funding

James G. Boswell Foundation (Boswell Foundation)National Science Foundation (NSF) 2145890
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Myocardial infarction (MI) is a leading cause of death worldwide and the most common precursor to heart failure, even after initial treatment. Precise evaluation of myocardial injury is crucial for assessing interventions and improving outcomes. Extensive evidence from both preclinical models and clinical studies demonstrates that the extent and severity of myocardial injury (i.e., myocardial infarct size, ischemic risk zone, and no-reflow area) are critical determinants of long-term outcomes post-MI. This study aims to assess whether carotid pressure waveforms, analyzed using an intrinsic frequency (IF)-machine learning (ML) approach, can accurately quantify myocardial injury sizes: myocardial infarct size, ischemic risk zone, and no-reflow area. Acute MI was induced in N = 88 Sprague-Dawley rats using a standard coronary occlusion/reperfusion model. MI-injury sizes were obtained via histopathology. IF metrics were extracted from carotid pressure waveforms post-MI. ML classifiers were developed using 66 rats and externally tested on 22 additional rats. Our best developed model for infarct size achieved an accuracy of 0.95 (specificity = 0.95, sensitivity = 0.96). For the ischemic risk zone, the best model showed an accuracy of 0.85 (specificity = 0.90, sensitivity = 0.80), and for the no-reflow area, we reached an accuracy of 0.88 (specificity = 0.89, sensitivity = 0.86). To conclude, a hybrid physics-based ML approach applied to carotid pressure waveforms successfully classified MI-injury severity. As carotid pressure waveforms can be measured non-invasively and remotely (e.g., via smartphones), this proof-of-concept preclinical study suggests a translational potential for post-MI management, enabling timely interventions, improved patient monitoring, and mitigating adverse outcomes.

Indexed as

Carotid ArteriesCoronary OcclusionMyocardial InfarctionMyocardial Reperfusion InjuryAnimalsBlood PressureDisease Models, AnimalMaleProof of Concept StudyRatsRats, Sprague-Dawleyacute myocardial infarctionarterial pressure waveformcardiovascular intrinsic frequencymyocardial injury sizesphysics‐based machine learning

Identifiers

PMID40913426
PMCPMC12413657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.