Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 573

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Anatomic Versus Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease

Open access
Gould, K. Lance, Johnson, Nils P., Bateman, Timothy M., Beanlands, Rob S., Bengel, Frank M., Bober, Robert, Camici, Paolo G., Cerqueira, Manuel D., Chow, Benjamin J.W., Di Carli, Marcelo F., Dorbala, Sharmila, Gewirtz, Henry, Gropler, Robert J., Kaufmann, Philipp A., Knaapen, Paul, Knuuti, Juhani, Merhige, Michael E., Rentrop, K. Peter, Ruddy, Terrence D., Schelbert, Heinrich R., Schindler, Thomas H., Schwaiger, Markus, Sdringola, Stefano, Vitarello, John, Williams, Kim A., Gordon, Donald, Dilsizian, Vasken, Narula, Jagat·2013·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Angiographic severity of coronary artery stenosis has historically been the primary guide to revascularization or medical management of coronary artery disease. However, physiologic severity defined by coronary pressure and/or flow has resurged into clinical prominence as a potential, fundamental change from anatomically to physiologically guided management. This review addresses clinical coronary physiology-pressure and flow-as clinical tools for treating patients. We clarify the basic concepts that hold true for whatever technology measures coronary physiology directly and reliably, here focusing on positron emission tomography and its interplay with intracoronary measurements.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.076

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 573

Metadata

Authors
Gould, K. L., Johnson, N. P., Bateman, T. M., Beanlands, R. S., Bengel, F. M., Bober, R., Camici, P. G., Cerqueira, M. D., Chow, B. J. W., Di Carli, M. F., Dorbala, S., Gewirtz, H., Gropler, R. J., Kaufmann, P. A., Knaapen, P., Knuuti, J., Merhige, M. E., Rentrop, K. P., Ruddy, T. D., Schelbert, H. R., Schindler, T. H., Schwaiger, M., Sdringola, S., Vitarello, J., Williams, K. A., Gordon, D., Dilsizian, V., & Narula, J.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-10
Volume
62
Issue
18
Pages
1639-1653
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2140800188
Cited by
573
References
1
FWCI
51.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Anatomic Versus Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.076
The paper
Gould, K. L., Johnson, N. P., Bateman, T. M., Beanlands, R. S., Bengel, F. M., Bober, R., Camici, P. G., Cerqueira, M. D., Chow, B. J. W., Di Carli, M. F., Dorbala, S., Gewirtz, H., Gropler, R. J., Kaufmann, P. A., Knaapen, P., Knuuti, J., Merhige, M. E., Rentrop, K. P., Ruddy, T. D., . . . Narula, J. (2013). Anatomic Versus Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.076

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.