ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2023
Performance of visual, manual, and automatic coronary calcium scoring of cardiac
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-driven radiomics in vascular disease: a narrative review of image analysis and clinical translation.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- Photon-Counting Chest CT at Radiography-Comparable Dose Levels: Impact on Opportunistic Visual and Semiautomated Coronary Calcium Quantification.Investigative radiology · 2026Article
- Advances in Artificial Intelligence for Non-ECG-Gated Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- The prognostic value of visual and automatic coronary calcium scoring from low-dose computed tomography-[15O]-water positron emission tomography.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2024Article
- Automated vessel-specific coronary artery calcification quantification with deep learning in a large multi-centre registry.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery calcium is a well-known predictor of major adverse cardiac events and is usually scored manually from dedicated, ECG-triggered calcium scoring CT (CSCT) scans. In clinical practice, a myocardial perfusion PET scan is accompanied by a non-ECG triggered low dose CT (LDCT) scan. In this study, we investigated the accuracy of patients' cardiovascular risk categorisation based on manual, visual, and automatic AI calcium scoring using the LDCT scan.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 213 patients. Each patient received a
resultsThe agreement of manual and automatic LDCT scoring with the reference was low [weighted kappa 0.59 (95% CI 0.53-0.65); 0.50 (95% CI 0.44-0.56), respectively], but the agreement of visual LDCT scoring was strong [0.82 (95% CI 0.77-0.86)].
conclusionsCompared with the gold standard manual CSCT scoring, visual LDCT scoring outperformed manual LDCT and automatic LDCT scoring.
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.