ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2025
The diagnostic performance of machine learning-based FFRCT for coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning-derived FFRCT (ML-FFRCT) for CAD, using invasive coronary angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (ICA-FFR) as the gold standard to provide evidence for clinical translation. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and Embase for relevant studies. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 in RevMan 5.3. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by pooling sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) using Stata 14.0. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were conducted based on the publication year, country, study design, sample source, and sample size. Results: The pooled SEN was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.87) and SPE was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88). The PLR and NLR were 4.95 (95% CI: 3.58-6.84) and 0.20 (95% CI: 0.15-0.26), respectively. The DOR was 25.15 (95% CI: 14.87-42.52) and the AUC was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93), indicating high diagnostic accuracy. Deeks' funnel plot revealed no significant publication bias. Conclusions: ML-FFRCT demonstrates high SEN and SPE in diagnosing CAD. These findings support its potential as a promising noninvasive tool for CAD assessment.
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.