ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Validation of biomechanical assessment of coronary plaque vulnerability based on intravascular optical coherence tomography and digital subtraction angiography.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between coronary plaque vulnerability features and multiparametric pericoronary fat indices on coronary computed tomography angiography: a cross-sectional study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Assessment of coronary computed tomography angiography-derived plaque features in the diagnosis of optical coherence tomography-defined vulnerable plaques.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Optical coherence tomography-guidedQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Background: It has been suggested that biomechanical factors may influence plaque development. However, key determinants for assessing plaque vulnerability remain speculative. Methods: In this study, a two-dimensional (2D) structural mechanical analysis and a three-dimensional (3D) fluid-structure interaction (FSI) analysis were conducted based on intravascular optical coherence tomography (IV-OCT) and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) data sets. In the 2D study, 103 IV-OCT slices were analyzed. An in-depth morpho-mechanic analysis and a weighted least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression analysis were conducted to identify the crucial features related to plaque vulnerability via the tuning parameter (λ). In the 3D study, the coronary model was reconstructed by fusing the IV-OCT and DSA data, and a FSI analysis was subsequently performed. The relationship between vulnerable plaque and wall shear stress (WSS) was investigated. Results: The influential factors were selected using the minimum criteria (λ-min) and one-standard error criteria (λ-1se). In addition to the common vulnerable factor of the minimum fibrous cap thickness (FCTmin), four biomechanical factors were selected by λ-min, including the average/maximal displacements and average/maximal stress, and two biomechanical factors were selected by λ-1se, including the average/maximal displacements. Additionally, the positions of the vulnerable plaques were consistent with the sites of high WSS. Conclusions: Functional indices are crucial for plaque status assessment. An evaluation based on biomechanical simulations might provide insights into risk identification and guide therapeutic decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.