The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessment of coronary artery disease severity by positron emission tomography. Comparison with quantitative arteriography in 193 patients.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Parkash, R., deKemp, R. A., Ruddy, T. D., Kitsikis, A., Hart, R., Beauschene, L., Williams, K., Davies, R. A., Labinaz, M., & Beanlands, R. S. B. (2004) · Journal of Nuclear Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.nuclcard.2004.04.005 · Cited by 277
Sampson, U. K., Dorbala, S., Limaye, A., Kwong, R., & Di Carli, M. F. (2007) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.12.015 · Cited by 277
Gould, K. L., Ornish, D., Kirkeeide, R., Brown, S., Stuart, Y., Buchi, M., Billings, J., Armstrong, W., Ports, T., & Scherwitz, L. (1992) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/0002-9149(92)90781-s · Cited by 111
Self-citationThe Estrogen Replacement and Atherosclerosis (ERA) Study
Herrington, D. M., Reboussin, D. M., Klein, K. P., Sharp, P. C., Shumaker, S. A., Snyder, T. E., & Geisinger, K. R. (2000) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(00)00054-4 · Cited by 74
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.