ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Comparison of systolic and diastolic CT-FFR for myocardial ischemia diagnosis.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) is a powerful tool for identifying hemodynamic ischemia. Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) images with the best quality in a cardiac cycle are conventionally reconstructed in clinical practice. To compare the diagnostic performance of machine learning (ML)-based CT-FFR between systolic and diastolic phases in identifying myocardial ischemia, using invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a reference standard.
methodsFrom December 2020 to October 2021, consecutive coronary artery disease (CAD) patients who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and invasive FFR were prospectively enrolled. Prospective electrocardiographic (ECG)-triggered scan from 30% to 80% of R-R interval was applied on image extraction of all the patients. CT-FFR was implemented in systolic and diastolic phases for each target vessel.
resultsNinety-six patients (mean age 62 ± 8, 31.3% female) with 98 vessels were successfully simulated in both systolic and diastolic phases. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher in diastolic CT-FFR (0.885 vs. 0.790, p < 0.001). The limits of agreement (LoA) range was narrower in diastolic CT-FFR (-0.134 to 0.148), compared with systolic CT-FFR (-0.234 to 0.273). Diastolic CT-FFR performed better than systolic CT-FFR in sensitivity (81.5% vs. 66.7%), specificity (83.1% vs. 71.8%), and accuracy (82.7% vs. 70.4%, all p < 0.05). The LoA range was narrower for diastolic CT-FFR across all stenosis degree groups, with diagnostic performance better in sensitivity (84.0% vs. 68.0%) and accuracy (81.4% vs. 58.1%, p < 0.001) among severe stenosis group.
conclusionsIn ML-based CT-FFR methods, diastolic CT-FFR showed better diagnostic performance and narrower LoA than systolic CT-FFR.
trial registrationThe study has been registered through the Ethics Committee of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, with the clinical trial number B2020-088R. The registration date is May 15, 2020.
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.