Prevalence-dependent thresholding and the safety of ruling out left main disease

Clicks: 5
ID: 338649
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #376 of 380 articles by views in european heart journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 380 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
This commentary refers to ‘Standard clinical and stress ECG variables to exclude left main and left main-equivalent disease: the MASTER study’, by M. De Carlo et al., https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehag464 and the discussion piece ‘Prevalence-dependent thresholding and the safety of ruling out left main disease’, by M. De Carlo et al., https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehag860. De Carlo et al. report a clinical and exercise electrocardiographic model intended to defer coronary angiography or coronary computed tomography angiography in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndromes. At an assumed 5% prevalence of left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) and a 1:100 misclassification cost ratio, the negative predictive value was 98.2%.1 Their Discussion further states that a lower LMCAD prevalence would increase both sensitivity and negative predictive value, making adoption more advantageous. That interpretation is not supported by the supplementary analyses: after prevalence-dependent threshold selection, the higher negative predictive value at 0.9% prevalence was accompanied by lower sensitivity. At 5% prevalence, optimism-adjusted sensitivity and negative predictive value were 85.3% and 98.2% at the 1:100 ratio and 74.4% and 97.7% at 1:50.1 At 0.9% prevalence, Supplementary Table 7 reported sensitivities of 64.5% and 63.0%, with a negative predictive value of 99.5% under both ratios.1 The Mayo Clinic validation showed the same pattern: sensitivity fell from 87.2% to 79.5% at 1:100 and from 84.6% to 69.2% at 1:50, despite higher negative predictive values.1 These estimates imply that the proportion of affected patients missed increased from 14.7% to 35.5% at 1:100 and from 25.6% to 37.0% at 1:50. A lower prevalence reduces the absolute number of false negatives per 1000 patients, but it does not reduce the probability of missing LMCAD among patients who have the disease.
Reference Key
openalex_W7225237440 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jidong Peng
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal european heart journal
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/eurheartj/ehag859
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehag859
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.