Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

But... what is it?

Posted by pshaffer on 20 Aug 2018 at 09:55 GMT

A scientific paper is supposed to first communicate results of an experiment and second give enough detailed information to allow the reader to duplicate and verify the work. This paper describes computer analysis of data collected in CAD patients. The description of the methods used to collect the data is entirely inadequate to allow the reader to assess the plausibility of the research.
They say "The cPSTA System is a medical device system that uses tomography to analyze phase signals and assess the presence of significant coronary artery disease in the major coronary arteries". They do not reveal what the "phase signals" actually ARE. Are they electrical, echocardiographic, acoustic, or something else entirely? No word on this. And "tomography" is a word to describe (usually) displaying image data in 2D sections. Of course, echocardiography is inherently tomographic. Nothing "uses" tomography to analyze a signal. Tomography is simply a display format.
The one reference they give to the technique, reference 6. This leads to a clinical trial report on a .gov site that says that the details are not available to the public. The purpose of references is to allow the reader to get additional information to verify what the authors are saying. In this case, this is not possible, and the reference should not have been included.
So, the reader is asked to accept without even minimal proof that the authors have a black box that, when subjected to some computer analysis, will somehow predict the results of coronary angiography. No word on the potential physiologic basis of this at all. Without enough information for readers to assess the plausibility of the research (let alone, allow an interested researcher to try to verify it), it cannot be believed.

No competing interests declared.
report a concern respond to this posting