Your goal is to extract structured information from the user's input that matches the form described below. When extracting information please make sure it matches the type information exactly. Do not add any attributes that do not appear in the schema shown below.

```TypeScript

 { // Information on the clinical trial characteristics from the abstract
 conditions: string // The condition or disease being treated in the clinical trial
 drug_or_intervention: string // The drug or intervention used in the clinical trial
}
```


Please output the extracted information in JSON format. Do not output anything except for the extracted information. Do not add any clarifying information. Do not add any fields that are not in the schema. If the text contains attributes that do not appear in the schema, please ignore them. All output must be in JSON format and follow the schema specified above. Wrap the JSON in <json> tags.



Input:Ontario multidetector computed tomographic coronary angiography study: field evaluation of diagnostic accuracy.  Computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTCA) has gained clinical acceptance for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease. Although single-center studies have demonstrated excellent accuracy, multicenter studies have yielded variable results. The true diagnostic accuracy of CTCA in the "real world" remains uncertain. We conducted a field evaluation comparing multidetector CTCA with invasive CA (ICA) to understand CTCA's diagnostic accuracy in a real-world setting. A multicenter cohort study of patients awaiting ICA was conducted between September 2006 and June 2009. All patients had either a low or an intermediate pretest probability for coronary artery disease and underwent CTCA and ICA within 10 days. The results of CTCA and ICA were interpreted visually by local expert observers who were blinded to all clinical data and imaging results. Using a patient-based analysis (diameter stenosis ≥50%) of 169 patients, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 81.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71.0%-89.1%), 93.3% (95% CI, 85.9%-97.5%), 91.6% (95% CI, 82.5%-96.8%), and 84.7% (95% CI, 76.0%-91.2%), respectively; the area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.873. The diagnostic accuracy varied across centers (P < .001), with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value ranging from 50.0% to 93.2%, 92.0% to 100%, 84.6% to 100%, and 42.9% to 94.7%, respectively. Compared with ICA, CTCA appears to have good accuracy; however, there was variability in diagnostic accuracy across centers. Factors affecting institutional variability need to be better understood before CTCA is universally adopted. Additional real-world evaluations are needed to fully understand the impact of CTCA on clinical care. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00371891. Output:
{'conditions': 'Coronary Arteriosclerosis|Cardiomyopathies|Heart Defects, Congenital|Heart Valve Diseases', 'interventions': 'Procedure: Multidetector Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography'}