ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Comparative diagnostic performance and stability of deep learning- and CFD-based CT-FFR across vessels, cardiac phases, and centers.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although CT-derived FFR (CT-FFR) based on deep learning (DL) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is increasingly used for functional ischemia assessment, direct head-to-head multi-center evidence regarding their diagnostic stability in the same cohort remains limited. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance and robustness of DL-based versus CFD-based CT-FFR against invasive FFR across coronary branches, cardiac phases, clinical centers, and ischemia-positive gray-zone lesions. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 220 patients (277 vessels) who underwent coronary CTA and invasive FFR from two centers. CT-FFR was calculated using representative commercial DL-based and CFD-based algorithms. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using invasive FFR as the reference standard. Subgroup analyses were performed for target vessels, reconstruction phases, imaging centers, and gray-zone lesions. Results: DL and CFD showed high and similar diagnostic performance. The AUC was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93) for DL and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92) for CFD, and the difference was not significant ( Conclusion: DL-based and CFD-based CT-FFR showed similar and strong diagnostic performance for detecting hemodynamically significant stenosis. These findings support the potential use of both approaches as non-invasive functional assessment tools in selected patients.
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.