ArticleEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging2026
Artificial intelligence-guided quantitative coronary CT assessment to rule-in or rule-out myocardial ischaemia.
Article in European heart journal. 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
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the ability of artificial intelligence-based quantitative CT (AI-QCT) parameters, diameter stenosis, percent atheroma volume (PAV) and average lumen area (ALA) to rule-in or rule-out ischaemia. METHODS AND
resultsThis post-hoc, vessel-level analysis included patients with suspected coronary artery disease from the computed tomographic evaluation of atherosclerotic determinants of myocardial ischaemia (CREDENCE) (612 patients; 1727 vessels) and PACIFIC-1 (208 patients; 612 vessels) studies who underwent CCTA and invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). In addition to diameter stenosis, PAV and ALA were evaluated as key predictors of ischaemia. We report abnormal FFR prevalence based on these variables and define rule-out (<15% ischaemia prevalence, defer further testing), rule-in (>75% prevalence, ischaemia highly likely; further testing typically unnecessary), and intermediate risk (15-75%, consider additional functional assessment). PAV and ALA were dichotomized using median values derived from the CREDENCE cohort (14.7% and 3.9 mm2) and validated in PACIFIC-1. In CREDENCE, all vessels with 1-24% stenosis were ruled-out. Among vessels with 25-49% stenosis, 74% met rule-out criteria, while 26%, characterized by large PAV and small ALA, were intermediate risk. Within the proposed framework vessels with 50-69% stenosis were classified as intermediate risk. For 70-99% stenosis, 93% met rule-in criteria, except a small subset with small PAV and large ALA. In PACIFIC-1, 86% of vessels with <50% stenosis were ruled-out, and 61% of those with 50-99% stenosis were ruled-in.
conclusionA simplified framework incorporating AI-QCT parameters including diameter stenosis, PAV (>14.7%), and ALA (<3.9 mm2), stratifies myocardial ischaemia risk. Most non-obstructive lesions can be ruled-out, while most stenoses >70% are reliably ruled-in. This practical approach enhances the diagnostic utility of CCTA and streamlines clinical decision-making.
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.