ArticlePostepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology2026
Simple risk stratification for a complex coronary phenotype: association of the ACEF score with coronary slow flow.
Article in Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology, 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
Introduction: There is a lack of scientific evidence regarding the association between the ACEF score and the prediction of coronary slow flow (CSF). Aim: To investigate the relationship between the ACEF score and CSF. Material and methods: This retrospective, single-center study enrolled 257 patients who underwent elective coronary angiography between January 2024 and August 2025. Patients were stratified into two groups: the CSF group ( Results: In ROC analysis, the cut-off value of the ACEF risk score was 0.94, with 81% sensitivity and 53% specificity for predicting CSF (AUC = 0.763, 95% CI: 0.706-0.821). For HbA1c, the optimal cut-off value was 5.44%, with a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 52% to predict CSF (AUC = 0.610, 95% CI: 0.538-0.682). The risk of CSF increased by 28% for every 0.1-unit increase in the ACEF score (OR per 0.1-unit increase: 1.278, 95% CI: 1.168-1.396). The ACEF score demonstrated superior discrimination (AUC: 0.763 vs. 0.729, Conclusions: This study suggests that the ACEF score is closely associated with the presence of CSF, independent of its individual components. The discriminatory ability of the ACEF score was superior to that of HbA1c in patients with CSF.
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.