ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2023
Validation of the commercial coronary computed tomographic angiography artificial intelligence for coronary artery stenosis: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of artificial intelligence in non-invasive cardiovascular imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Beyond plaque segmentation: a combined radiomics-deep learning approach for automated CAD-RADS classification.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The commercial coronary computed tomographic angiography artificial intelligence (CCTA-AI) platform has made great progress in clinical application. However, research is needed to elucidate the current stage of commercial AI platforms and the role of radiologists. This study compared the diagnostic performance of the commercial CCTA-AI platform with that of a reader based on a multicenter and multidevice sample. Methods: A total of 318 patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent both CCTA and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) were included in a multicenter and multidevice validation cohort between 2017 and 2021. The commercial CCTA-AI platform was used to automatically assess coronary artery stenosis by using ICA findings as the gold standard. The CCTA reader was completed by radiologists. The diagnostic performance of the commercial CCTA-AI platform and CCTA reader was evaluated at the patient and segment levels. The cutoff values of models 1 and 2 were 50% and 70% stenosis, respectively. Results: It took 20.4 seconds to accomplish post-processing per patient when using the CCTA-AI platform, which was significantly shorter than the time taken to complete this task with the CCTA reader (1,112.1 s). In the patient-based analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.85 using the CCTA-AI platform and 0.61 using the CCTA reader in model 1 (stenosis ratio: 50%). In contrast, the AUC was 0.78 using the CCTA-AI platform and 0.64 using the CCTA reader in model 2 (stenosis ratio: 70%). In the segment-based analysis, the AUCs of CCTA-AI were slightly better than those of the readers. The negative predictive value (NPV) increased from model 1 to model 2. Furthermore, the diagnostic performance was better for larger-diameter arteries. Conclusions: The commercial CCTA-AI platform may provide a feasible solution for the diagnosis of coronary artery stenosis, and it has a diagnostic performance that is slightly better than that of a radiologist with a moderate level of experience (5-10 years of experience).
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.