ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Predictive models for trans-stenotic pressure gradient in the transverse sinus based on multimodal correlates.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The invasive nature of the methods currently available for screening based on the trans-stenotic pressure gradient (TPG) limits their widespread application. We aimed to develop machine learning models for predicting TPG in the transverse sinus. Methods: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Friendship Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 83 patients confirmed to have pressure-measured transverse sinus stenosis from January 2017 to June 2022 at Beijing Friendship Hospital. The dataset included clinical, laboratory, computed tomography angiography, and four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance data with 29 feature indicators. Six machine learning methods-support vector machine, k-nearest neighbors, decision tree, random forest (RF), gradient boosting decision tree, and extreme gradient boosting-were employed to construct classification models for 4- and 8-mmHg TPG thresholds via fivefold cross-validation. Models were evaluated according to accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), and area under the curve (AUC). Results: For the 4-mmHg threshold, RF showed the highest performance, with an accuracy of 0.83, a specificity of 0.62, a sensitivity of 0.95, an F1 score of 0.92, an MCC of 0.60, and an AUC of 0.92. RF also excelled for the 8-mmHg threshold, with accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, F1 score, MCC, and AUC values of 0.84, 0.86, 0.81, 0.78, 0.70, and 0.91, respectively. SHapley Additive exPlanations analysis indicated that peak velocity and average velocity differences positively correlated with TPG, whereas the residual area ratio was negatively correlated. Conclusions: The models demonstrated strong discriminative ability and are useful for noninvasive TPG prediction.
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.