ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Automated Identification of Coronary Arteries in Assisting Inexperienced Readers: Comparison between Two Commercial Vendors.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: to assess the performance and speed of two commercially available advanced cardiac software packages in the automated identification of coronary vessels as an aiding tool for inexperienced readers. Methods: Hundred and sixty patients undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) were prospectively enrolled from February until September 2021 and randomized in two groups, each one composed by 80 patients. Patients in group 1 were scanned on Revolution EVO CT Scanner (GE Healthcare), while patients in group 2 had the CCTA performed on Brilliance iCT (Philips Healthcare); each examination was evaluated on the respective vendor proprietary advanced cardiac software (software 1 and 2, respectively). Two inexperienced readers in cardiac imaging verified the software performance in the automated identification of the three major coronary vessels: (RCA, LCx, and LAD) and in the number of identified coronary segments. Time of analysis was also recorded. Results: software 1 correctly and automatically nominated 202/240 (84.2%) of the three main coronary vessels, while software 2 correctly identified 191/240 (79.6%) (p = 0.191). Software 1 achieved greater performances in recognizing the LCx (81.2% versus 67.5%; p = 0.048), while no differences have been reported in detecting the RCA (p = 0.679), and the LAD (p = 0.618). On a per-segment analysis, software 1 outperformed software 2, automatically detecting 942/1062 (88.7%) coronary segments, while software 2 detected 797/1078 (73.9%) (p < 0.001). Average reconstruction and detection time was of 13.8 s for software 1 and 21.9 s for software 2 (p < 0.001). Conclusions: automated cardiac software packages are a reliable and time-saving tool for inexperienced reader. Software 1 outperforms software 2 and might therefore better assist inexperienced CCTA readers in automated identification of the three main vessels and coronaries segments, with a consistent time saving of the reading session.
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.