ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2014
Computer-aided CT coronary artery stenosis detection: comparison with human reading and quantitative coronary angiography.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative assessment of non-invasive imaging methods for coronary artery disease: coronary computed tomography angiography, computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio computed tomography.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- Diagnostic performance of deep learning-based vessel extraction and stenosis detection on coronary computed tomography angiography for coronary artery disease: a multi-reader multi-case study.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Automated Identification of Coronary Arteries in Assisting Inexperienced Readers: Comparison between Two Commercial Vendors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Do plaque-related factors affect the diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence coronary-assisted diagnosis system? Comparison with invasive coronary angiography.European radiology · 2022Article
- Development of Novel Artificial Intelligence to Detect the Presence of Clinically Meaningful Coronary Atherosclerotic Stenosis in Major Branch from Coronary Angiography Video.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2021Article
- Computer-aided analysis of 64- and 320-slice coronary computed tomography angiography: a comparison with expert human interpretation.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2018Observational
- Plaque assessment by coronary CT.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2016Review
- Cardiovascular imaging 2014 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate computer-aided stenosis detection for computed tomography coronary angiography (CTA) in comparison with human reading and conventional coronary angiography (CCA) as the reference standard. 50 patients underwent CTA and CCA and out of these 44 were evaluable for computer-aided stenosis detection. The diagnostic performance of the software and of human reading were compared and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) served as the reference standard for the detection of significant stenosis (>50 %). Overall, three readers with high (reader 1), intermediate (reader 2) and low (reader 3) experience in cardiac CT imaging performed the manual CTA evaluation on a commercially available workstation, whereas the automated software processed the datasets without any human interaction. The prevalence of coronary artery disease was 41 % (18/44) and QCA indicated significant stenosis (>50 %) in 33 coronary vessels. The automated software accurately diagnosed 18 individuals with significant coronary artery disease (CAD), and correctly ruled out CAD in 10 patients. In summary the sensitivity of computer-aided detection was 100 %/94 % (per-patient/per-vessel) and the specificity was 38 %/70 %, the positive predictive value (PPV) was 53 %/42 % and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 100 %/98 %. In comparison, reader 1-3 showed per-patient sensitivities of 100/94/89 %, specificities of 73/69/50 %, PPVs of 72/68/55 % and NPVs of 100/95/87 %. Computer-aided detection yields a high NPV that is comparable to more experienced human readers. However, PPV is rather low and in the range of an unexperienced reader.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.