↓ Skip to main content

Computationally simulated fractional flow reserve from coronary computed tomography angiography based on fractional myocardial mass

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Computationally simulated fractional flow reserve from coronary computed tomography angiography based on fractional myocardial mass
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10554-018-1432-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Huan Han, Yong Gyun Bae, Seung Tae Hwang, Hyung-Yoon Kim, Il Park, Sung-Mok Kim, Yeonhyeon Choe, Young-June Moon, Jin-Ho Choi

Abstract

Computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-based calculations of fractional flow reserve (FFR) can improve the diagnostic performance of CCTA for physiologically significant stenosis but the computational resource requirements are high. This study aimed at establishing a simple and efficient algorithm for computing simulated FFR (S-FFR). A total of 107 patients who underwent CCTA and invasive FFR measurements were enrolled in the study. S-FFR was calculated using 145 evaluable coronary arteries with off-the-shelf softwares. FFR ≤ 0.80 was a reference threshold for diagnostic performance of diameter stenosis (DS) ≥ 50%, DS ≥ 70%, or S-FFR ≤ 0.80. FFR ≤ 0.80 was identified in 78 vessels (54%). In per-vessel analysis, S-FFR showed good correlation (r = 0.83) and agreement (mean difference = 0.02 ± 0.08) with FFR. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of S-FFR ≤ 0.80 for FFR ≤ 0.80 were 84%, 92%, 92%, 83%, and 88%, respectively. S-FFR ≤ 0.80 showed much higher predictive performance for FFR ≤ 0.80 compared with DS ≥ 50% or DS ≥ 70% (c-statistics = 0.92 vs. 0.58 or 0.65, p < 0.001, all). The classification agreement between FFR and S-FFR was > 80% when the average of FFR and S-FFR was < 0.76 or > 0.86. Per-patient analysis showed consistent results. In this study, a simple and computationally efficient simulated FFR (S-FFR) algorithm is designed and tested using non-proprietary off-the-shelf software. This algorithm may expand the accessibility of clinical applications for non-invasive coronary physiology study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 36%
Engineering 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Materials Science 1 4%
Design 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#938
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,593
of 341,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#12
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.