Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34274267›Full record

ArticleJACC. Cardiovascular imaging2022

Clinical Deployment of Explainable Artificial Intelligence of SPECT for Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease.

Yuka Otaki, Ananya Singh, Paul Kavanagh, Robert J H Miller, Tejas Parekh, Balaji K Tamarappoo, Tali Sharir, Andrew J Einstein, Mathews B Fish, Terrence D Ruddy and 11 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JACC. Cardiovascular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Deep learning-based obstructive coronary artery disease prediction from myocardial perfusion SPECT.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Artificial Intelligence in Nuclear Cardiology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Perfusion Scoring Improves the Diagnostic Accuracy of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Yuka OtakiDepartment of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Ananya SinghDepartment of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Paul KavanaghDepartment of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Robert J H MillerDepartment of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA; Department of Cardiac Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Tejas ParekhDepartment of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Balaji K TamarappooDepartment of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Tali SharirDepartment of Nuclear Cardiology, Assuta Medical Centers, Tel Aviv, Israel, and Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheba, Israel.
Andrew J EinsteinDivision of Cardiology, Departments of Medicine and Radiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Mathews B FishOregon Heart and Vascular Institute, Sacred Heart Medical Center, Springfield, Oregon, USA.
Terrence D RuddyDivision of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Philipp A KaufmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Cardiac Imaging, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Albert J SinusasSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Edward J MillerSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Timothy M BatemanCardiovascular Imaging Technologies, LLC, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
Sharmila DorbalaDepartment of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Marcelo Di CarliDepartment of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Sebastien CadetDepartment of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Joanna X LiangDepartment of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Damini DeyDepartment of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Daniel S BermanDepartment of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Piotr J SlomkaDepartment of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. Electronic address: Piotr.Slomka@cshs.org.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USYale University · USBen-Gurion University of the Negev · ILHeart Imaging Technologies (United States) · USNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · USProvidence Sacred Heart Medical Center · USUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Quantitative Prediction of Disease and Outcomes from Next Generation SPECT and CTR01HL089765 · NHLBI · CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER · PI SLOMKA, PIOTR J · 2007 to 2021
$6.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL089765
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExplainable artificial intelligence (AI) can be integrated within standard clinical software to facilitate the acceptance of the diagnostic findings during clinical interpretation.

objectivesThis study sought to develop and evaluate a novel, general purpose, explainable deep learning model (coronary artery disease-deep learning [CAD-DL]) for the detection of obstructive CAD following single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI).

methodsA total of 3,578 patients with suspected CAD undergoing SPECT MPI and invasive coronary angiography within a 6-month interval from 9 centers were studied. CAD-DL computes the probability of obstructive CAD from stress myocardial perfusion, wall motion, and wall thickening maps, as well as left ventricular volumes, age, and sex. Myocardial regions contributing to the CAD-DL prediction are highlighted to explain the findings to the physician. A clinical prototype was integrated using a standard clinical workstation. Diagnostic performance by CAD-DL was compared to automated quantitative total perfusion deficit (TPD) and reader diagnosis.

resultsIn total, 2,247 patients (63%) had obstructive CAD. In 10-fold repeated testing, the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) (95% CI) was higher according to CAD-DL (AUC: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.82-0.85]) than stress TPD (AUC: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.77-0.80]) or reader diagnosis (AUC: 0.71 [95% CI: 0.69-0.72]; P < 0.0001 for both). In external testing, the AUC in 555 patients was higher according to CAD-DL (AUC: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.76-0.84]) than stress TPD (AUC: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.69-0.77]) or reader diagnosis (AUC: 0.65 [95% CI: 0.61-0.69]; P < 0.001 for all). The present model can be integrated within standard clinical software and generates results rapidly (<12 seconds on a standard clinical workstation) and therefore could readily be incorporated into a typical clinical workflow.

conclusionsThe deep-learning model significantly surpasses the diagnostic accuracy of standard quantitative analysis and clinical visual reading for MPI. Explainable artificial intelligence can be integrated within standard clinical software to facilitate acceptance of artificial intelligence diagnosis of CAD following MPI.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseMyocardial Perfusion ImagingArtificial IntelligenceCoronary AngiographyHumansPredictive Value of TestsTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photonartificial intelligencedeep learningdiagnostic accuracySPECT

Identifiers

PMID34274267
PMCPMC9020794
OpenAlexW3177759260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.