ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2021
Automated Segmentation and Volume Measurement of Intracranial Internal Carotid Artery Calcification at Noncontrast CT.
Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2021. 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, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidental Finding of Coronary and Non-Coronary Artery Calcium: What Do Clinicians Need To Know?Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025Review
- Automated MRI-based segmentation of intracranial arterial calcification by restricting feature complexity.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular disease/stroke risk stratification in deep learning framework: a review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Review
- Role of Machine Learning-Based CT Body Composition in Risk Prediction and Prognostication: Current State and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Role and progress of artificial intelligence in radiodiagnosing vascular calcification: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Review
- Development of an image processing software for quantification of histological calcification staining images.PloS one · 2023Article
- Automated anatomical labeling of the intracranial arteries via deep learning in computed tomography angiography.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Automated Detection of Cervical Carotid Artery Calcifications in Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Images Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop and evaluate a fully-automated deep learning-based method for assessment of intracranial internal carotid artery calcification (ICAC). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from the Rotterdam study (2003-2006) to develop and validate a deep learning-based method for automated ICAC delineation and volume measurement. Two observers manually delineated ICAC on noncontrast CT scans of 2319 participants (mean age, 69 years ± 7 [standard deviation]; 1154 women [53.2%]), and a deep learning model was trained to segment ICAC and quantify its volume. Model performance was assessed by comparing manual and automated segmentations and volume measurements to those produced by an independent observer (available on 47 scans), comparing the segmentation accuracy in a blinded qualitative visual comparison by an expert observer, and comparing the association with first stroke incidence from the scan date until 2016. All method performance metrics were computed using 10-fold cross-validation.
resultsThe automated delineation of ICAC reached a sensitivity of 83.8% and positive predictive value (PPV) of 88%. The intraclass correlation between automatic and manual ICAC volume measures was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97, 0.98; computed in the entire dataset). Measured between the assessments of independent observers, sensitivity was 73.9%, PPV was 89.5%, and intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.95; computed in the 47-scan subset). In the blinded visual comparisons of 294 regions, automated delineations were judged as more accurate than manual delineations in 131 regions, less accurate in 94 regions, and equally accurate in the rest of the regions (131 of 225, 58.2%;
conclusionThe developed model was capable of automated segmentation and volume quantification of ICAC with accuracy comparable to human experts.
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.