A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Combining morphological and biomechanical factors for optimal carotid plaque progression prediction: An MRI-based follow-up study using 3D thin-layer models. | LitMetric

Plaque progression prediction is of fundamental significance to cardiovascular research and disease diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Magnetic resonance image (MRI) data of carotid atherosclerotic plaques were acquired from 20 patients with consent obtained. 3D thin-layer models were constructed to calculate plaque stress and strain. Data for ten morphological and biomechanical risk factors were extracted for analysis. Wall thickness increase (WTI), plaque burden increase (PBI) and plaque area increase (PAI) were chosen as three measures for plaque progression. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) with 5-fold cross-validation strategy were used to calculate prediction accuracy and identify optimal predictor. The optimal predictor for PBI was the combination of lumen area (LA), plaque area (PA), lipid percent (LP), wall thickness (WT), maximum plaque wall stress (MPWS) and maximum plaque wall strain (MPWSn) with prediction accuracy = 1.4146 (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value is 0.7158), while PA, plaque burden (PB), WT, LP, minimum cap thickness, MPWS and MPWSn was the best for WTI (accuracy = 1.3140, AUC = 0.6552), and a combination of PA, PB, WT, MPWS, MPWSn and average plaque wall strain (APWSn) was the best for PAI with prediction accuracy = 1.3025 (AUC = 0.6657). The combinational predictors improved prediction accuracy by 9.95%, 4.01% and 1.96% over the best single predictors for PAI, PBI and WTI (AUC values improved by 9.78%, 9.45%, and 2.14%), respectively. This suggests that combining both morphological and biomechanical risk factors could lead to better patient screening strategies.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6710108PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.07.005DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

morphological biomechanical
12
plaque progression
12
plaque wall
12
plaque
11
combining morphological
8
progression prediction
8
thin-layer models
8
biomechanical risk
8
risk factors
8
wall thickness
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!