Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) represents the gold standard in guiding the decision to proceed or not with coronary revascularization of angiographically intermediate coronary lesion (AICL). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) allows to carefully characterize coronary plaque morphology and lumen dimensions.
Objectives: We sought to develop machine learning (ML) models based on clinical, angiographic and OCT variables for predicting FFR.
Methods: Data from a multicenter, international, pooled analysis of individual patient's level data from published studies assessing FFR and OCT on the same target AICL were collected through a dedicated database to train (n = 351) and validate (n = 151) six two-class supervised ML models employing 25 clinical, angiographic and OCT variables.
Results: A total of 502 coronary lesions in 489 patients were included. The AUC of the six ML models ranged from 0.71 to 0.78, whereas the measured F1 score was from 0.70 to 0.75. The ML algorithms showed moderate sensitivity (range: 0.68-0.77) and specificity (range: 0.59-0.69) in detecting patients with a positive or negative FFR. In the sensitivity analysis, using 0.75 as FFR cut-off, we found a higher AUC (0.78-0.86) and a similar F1 score (range: 0.63-0.76). Specifically, the six ML models showed a higher specificity (0.71-0.84), with a similar sensitivity (0.58-0.80) with respect to 0.80 cut-off.
Conclusions: ML algorithms derived from clinical, angiographic, and OCT parameters can identify patients with a positive or negative FFR.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31167 | DOI Listing |