Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9357590›Full record

ArticleProceedings : a conference of the American Medical Informatics Association. AMIA Fall Symposium1997

Automatic stenosis detection and quantification in renal arteriography.

I Cherrak, J F Paul, M C Jaulent, G Chatellier, P F Plouin, J C Gaux, P Degoulet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings : a conference of the American Medical Informatics Association. AMIA Fall Symposium, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

I CherrakMedical Informatics Department, Broussais University Hospital, Paris, France. cherrak@hbroussais.fr
J F Paul
M C Jaulent
G Chatellier
P F Plouin
J C Gaux
P Degoulet
Hôpital Broussais · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual assessment of the degree of renal artery stenosis on renal arteriography has a large inter- and intraobserver variability. This degree is usually estimated by the ratio between the most narrowed portion of the artery and the reference diameter. The latter is a priori unknown information and thus operator dependent. The objective of the present work was to test the performances of a computer system that was designed to analyze and quantify lesions on 2D renal arteriograms. The main hypothesis was to consider that the most frequent diameter computed along the artery was a good candidate to approximate the reference diameter. Forty nine patient images were collected from the EMMA randomized trial, a multicenter study comparing two treatment strategies in unilateral atheromatous renal artery stenosis of at least 60%. For each image, the degree of stenosis was evaluated by five independent experts and the mean value was used to represent the gold standard for the computer system. The system is based on a fuzzy automaton and performs a syntactic analysis of the arterial segment providing automatic and reproducible quantification of lesions. Both the radiologist caring for the patient and the system were compared to the gold standard. Compared to individual radiologists, the computer system gave a more precise estimation of percent stenosis and did not over or under estimate the severity of the lesion.

Indexed as

Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedFuzzy LogicHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRenal ArteryRenal Artery ObstructionSignal Processing, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID9357590
PMCPMC2233450
OpenAlexW230623802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.