SynthesisThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Artificial intelligence in estimating instantaneous wave-free ratio: a systematic literature review of techniques.
Synthesis in The international journal of cardiovascular 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an essential tool for evaluating coronary artery disease and directing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) has been validated as a non-hyperemic alternative with less procedural complexity and adverse effects, as no pharmacological induction of hyperemia is required. Nevertheless, iFR invasiveness limits the popularity of the technique in clinical practice. However, recent AI breakthroughs have led to improvements in the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive iFR estimation via different imaging modalities such as X-ray coronary angiography (XCA) and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). A systematic search was conducted in the Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases without any date restriction. Only studies that resulted in the development of AI-based methods for the estimation of iFR were considered. Five studies met the inclusion criteria and used AI to estimate iFR from CCTA and XCA image data. The diagnostic accuracy reported varied from 58% to 90.2%, while sensitivity was between 37% and 87.2%, and specificity between 50% and 97.8%. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) ranged from 34% to 79% and 77% to 97.5%, respectively. The value of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve ranged from 0.89 to 0.98. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to evaluate the quality of the study. AI models reported a promising improvement in the assessment of coronary artery disease based on accurate non-invasive methodologies. However, further research is needed to establish standardized practices and ensure the accessibility and applicability of these tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41636975What 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.