Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 402

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

Cardiac Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Imaging Accurately Detects Anatomically and Functionally Significant Coronary Artery Disease

Kajander, S., Joutsiniemi, E., Saraste, M., Pietilä, M., Ukkonen, H., Saraste, A., Sipilä, H.T., Teräs, M., Mäki, M., Airaksinen, J., Hartiala, J., Knuuti, J.·2010·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Computed tomography (CT) is increasingly used to detect coronary artery disease, but the evaluation of stenoses is often uncertain. Perfusion imaging has an established role in detecting ischemia and guiding therapy. Hybrid positron emission tomography (PET)/CT allows combination angiography and perfusion imaging in short, quantitative, low-radiation-dose protocols. Methods and Results— We enrolled 107 patients with an intermediate (30% to 70%) pretest likelihood of coronary artery disease. All patients underwent PET/CT (quantitative PET with 15 O-water and CT angiography), and the results were compared with the gold standard, invasive angiography, including measurement of fractional flow reserve when appropriate. Although PET and CT angiography alone both demonstrated 97% negative predictive value, CT angiography alone was suboptimal in assessing the severity of stenosis (positive predictive value, 81%). Perfusion imaging alone could not always separate microvascular disease from epicardial stenoses, but hybrid PET/CT significantly improved this accuracy to 98%. The radiation dose of the combined PET and CT protocols was 9.3 mSv (86 patients) with prospective triggering and 21.8 mSv (21 patients) with spiral CT. Conclusion— Cardiac hybrid PET/CT imaging allows accurate noninvasive detection of coronary artery disease in a symptomatic population. The method is feasible and can be performed routinely with <10 mSv in most patients. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00627172.

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/circulationaha.109.915009

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 402

Metadata

Authors
Kajander, S., Joutsiniemi, E., Saraste, M., Pietilä, M., Ukkonen, H., Saraste, A., Sipilä, H. T., Teräs, M., Mäki, M., Airaksinen, J., Hartiala, J., & Knuuti, J.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2010-08-10
Volume
122
Issue
6
Pages
603-613
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2165548906
Cited by
402
References
1
FWCI
27.00
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: Cardiac Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Imaging Accurately Detects Anatomically and Functionally Significant Coronary Artery Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.109.915009
The paper
Kajander, S., Joutsiniemi, E., Saraste, M., Pietilä, M., Ukkonen, H., Saraste, A., Sipilä, H. T., Teräs, M., Mäki, M., Airaksinen, J., Hartiala, J., & Knuuti, J. (2010). Cardiac Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Imaging Accurately Detects Anatomically and Functionally Significant Coronary Artery Disease. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.109.915009

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.