Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35502379›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022

Automatic coronary artery calcium scoring on routine chest computed tomography (CT): comparison of a deep learning algorithm and a dedicated calcium scoring CT.

Cheng Xu, Heng Guo, Minfeng Xu, Miao Duan, Ming Wang, Peijun Liu, Xinyi Luo, Zhengyu Jin, Hui Liu, Yining Wang

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Cheng XuDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Heng GuoAlibaba Group, Hangzhou, China.
Minfeng XuAlibaba Group, Hangzhou, China.
Miao DuanDepartment of Radiology, Shunyi Hospital, Beijing Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Beijing, China.
Ming WangDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Peijun LiuDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xinyi LuoDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Zhengyu JinDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Hui LiuDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Yining WangDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Peking Union Medical College Hospital · CNAlibaba Group (China) · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNGuangdong Academy of Medical Sciences · CNGuangdong Provincial People's Hospital · CNShunyi Hospital of Beijing Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and accuracy of automatic coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring and risk classification in non-gated, non-contrast chest computed tomography (CT) of different slice thicknesses using a deep learning algorithm. Methods: This retrospective study was performed at 2 tertiary hospitals. Paired, dedicated calcium-scoring CT scans and non-gated, non-contrast chest CT scans taken within a month from the same patients were included. Chest CT images were grouped according to the slice thickness (group A: 1 mm; group B: 3 mm). For internal scans, the CAC score manually measured on dedicated calcium scoring CT images was used as the gold standard. The deep learning algorithm for group A was trained using 150 chest CT scans and tested using 144 scans, and that for group B was trained using 170 chest CT scans and tested using 144 scans. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the correlation between the algorithm and the gold standard. Agreement between the deep learning algorithm, the manual results on chest CT, and the gold standard was determined by Bland-Altman analysis. Cardiac risk categories were compared. External validation was performed on 334 paired scans from a different organization. Results: A total of 608 internal paired scans (1 mm: 294; 3 mm: 314) of 406 individuals and 334 external paired scans (1 mm: 117; 3 mm: 117) of 117 individuals were included in the analysis. The ICCs between the deep learning algorithm and the gold standard were excellent in both group A (0.90; 95% CI: 0.85-0.93) and group B (0.94; 95% CI: 0.92-0.96). The Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement in both groups. For the cardiovascular risk category, the deep learning algorithm accurately classified 71% of cases in group A and 81% of cases in group B. The Kappa values for risk classification were 0.72 in group A and 0.82 in group B. External validation yielded equally good results. Conclusions: The automatic calculation of CAC score and cardiovascular risk stratification on non-gated chest CT using a deep learning algorithm was reliable and accurate on both 1 and 3 mm scans. Chest CT with a slice thickness of 3 mm was slightly more accurate in CAC detection and risk classification.

Indexed as

atherosclerosischest computed tomography (CT)coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoreCoronary artery diseasedeep learning

Identifiers

PMID35502379
PMCPMC9014138
OpenAlexW4225429079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.