Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 316

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Assessment of coronary artery disease severity by positron emission tomography. Comparison with quantitative arteriography in 193 patients.

Demer, L L, Gould, K L, Goldstein, R A, Kirkeeide, R L, Mullani, N A, Smalling, R W, Nishikawa, A, Merhige, M E·1989·Circulation

Abstract

To assess the accuracy of positron emission tomography (PET) for evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD), cardiac PET perfusion images were obtained at rest and with dipyridamole-handgrip stress in 193 patients undergoing coronary arteriography. PET images were reviewed by two independent readers blinded to clinical data. Subjective defect severity scores were assigned to each myocardial region on a 0 (normal) to 5 (severe) scale. Results were compared with arteriographic stenosis severity expressed as stenosis flow reserve (SFR), with continuous values ranging from 0 (total occlusion) to 5 (normal), calculated from quantitative arteriographic dimensions using automated detection of the vessel borders. There were 115 patients with significant CAD (SFR less than 3), 37 patients with mild CAD (3 less than or equal to SFR less than 4), and 41 patients with essentially normal coronaries (SFR greater than or equal to 4). With increasingly severe impairment of stenosis flow reserve, subjective PET defect severity increased. Despite wide scatter, a PET score of 2 or more was highly predictive of significant flow reserve impairment (SFR less than 3). For each patient, the score of the most severe PET defect correlated with the SFR of that patient's most severe stenosis (rs = 0.77 +/- 0.06). For each of 243 stenoses, PET defect score correlated with the SFR of the corresponding artery (rs = 0.63 +/- 0.08). PET defect location closely matched the region supplied by the diseased artery, and readers agreed whether the most severe PET defect was less than or more than 2 for 89% of patients.

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 · 10.1161/01.cir.79.4.825

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 316

Metadata

Authors
Demer, L. L., Gould, K. L., Goldstein, R. A., Kirkeeide, R. L., Mullani, N. A., Smalling, R. W., Nishikawa, A., & Merhige, M. E.
Venue
Circulation
Published
1989-04
Volume
79
Issue
4
Pages
825-835
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2060404777
Cited by
316
References
0
FWCI
16.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Assessment of coronary artery disease severity by positron emission tomography. Comparison with quantitative arteriography in 193 patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.79.4.825
The paper
Demer, L. L., Gould, K. L., Goldstein, R. A., Kirkeeide, R. L., Mullani, N. A., Smalling, R. W., Nishikawa, A., & Merhige, M. E. (1989). Assessment of coronary artery disease severity by positron emission tomography. Comparison with quantitative arteriography in 193 patients. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.79.4.825

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.