Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 241

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

Application of conditional probability analysis to the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

Open access
Diamond, G A, Forrester, J S, Hirsch, M, Staniloff, H M, Vas, R, Berman, D S, Swan, H J·1980·Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Analysis of multiple noninvasive tests offers the promise of more accurate diagnosis of coronary artery disease, but discordant test responses can occur frequently and, when observed, result in diagnostic uncertainty. Accordingly, 43 patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography were evaluated by noninvasive testing and the results subjected to analysis using Bayes' theorem of conditional probability. The procedures used included electrocardiographic stress testing for detection of exercise-induced ST segment depression, cardiokymographic stress testing for detection of exercise-induced precordial dyskinesis, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for detection of exercise-induced relative regional hypoperfusion, and cardiac fluoroscopy for detection of coronary artery calcification. The probability for coronary artery disease was estimated by Bayes' theorem from each patient's age, sex, and symptom classification, and from the observed test responses. This analysis revealed a significant linear correlation between the predicted probability for coronary artery disease and the observed prevalence of angiographic disease over the entire range of probability from 0 to 100% (P less than 0.001 by linear regression). The 12 patients without angiographic disease had a mean posttest likelihood of only 7.0 +/- 2.6% despite the fact that 13 of the 60 historical and test responses were falsely "positive." In contrast, the mean posttest likelihood was 94.1 +/- 2.8% in the 31 patients with angiographic coronary artery disease, although 45 of the 155 historical and test responses were falsely "negative." In 8 of the 12 normal patients, the final posttest likelihood was under 10% and in 26 of the 31 coronary artery disease patients, it was over 90%. These estimates also correlated well with the pooled clinical judgment of five experienced cardiologists (P less than 0.001 by linear regression). The observed change in probability for disease for each of the 15 different test combinations correlated with their information content predicted according to Shannon's theorem (P less than 0.001 by linear regression). These results support the use of probability analysis in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease and provide a formal basis for comparing the relative diagnostic effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different test combinations.

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 · 10.1172/jci109776

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 241

Metadata

Authors
Diamond, G. A., Forrester, J. S., Hirsch, M., Staniloff, H. M., Vas, R., Berman, D. S., & Swan, H. J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Investigation
Published
1980-05-01
Volume
65
Issue
5
Pages
1210-1221
ISSN
0021-9738 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2110077712
Cited by
241
References
1
FWCI
10.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Application of conditional probability analysis to the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1172/jci109776
The paper
Diamond, G. A., Forrester, J. S., Hirsch, M., Staniloff, H. M., Vas, R., Berman, D. S., & Swan, H. J. (1980). Application of conditional probability analysis to the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Journal of Clinical Investigation. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci109776

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.