ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2023
Influence of computed tomography slice thickness on deep learning-based, automatic coronary artery calcium scoring software performance.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of slice thickness on CACS calculation with virtual non-contrast in photon-counting CT.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Coronary Calcium Scoring Using True and Virtual Non-Contrast Reconstructions on Photon-Counting CT with Differing Slice Increment: Impact on Calcium Severity Classifications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Coronary artery calcium measurement on attenuation correction computed tomography using artificial intelligence: correlation with coronary flow capacity and prognosis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Performance assessment of an artificial intelligence-based coronary artery calcium scoring algorithm in non-gated chest CT scans of different slice thickness.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
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 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The influence of computed tomography (CT) slice thickness on the accuracy of deep learning (DL)-based, automatic coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring software has not been explored yet. Methods: This retrospective study included 844 subjects (477 men, mean age of 58.9±10.7 years) who underwent electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated CAC scoring CT scans with 1.5 and 3 mm slice thickness values between September 2013 and October 2020. Automatic CAC scoring was performed using DL-based software (3D patch-based U-Net architectures). Manual CAC scoring was set as the reference standard. The reliability of automatic CAC scoring was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for both the 1.5 and 3 mm datasets. The agreement of CAC severity categories [Agatston score (AS) 0, 1-100, 101-400, >400] between automatic CAC scoring and the reference standard was analyzed using weighted kappa (κ) statistics for both 1.5 and 3 mm datasets. Results: The CAC scoring agreement between the automatic CAC scoring and reference standard was excellent (ICC 0.982 for 1.5 mm, 0.969 for 3 mm, respectively). The categorical agreement of CAC severity between two methods was excellent for both 1.5 and 3 mm scans, with better agreement for 3 mm scans (weighted κ: 0.851 and 0.961, 95% confidence intervals: 0.823-0.879 and 0.945-0.974, respectively). Conclusions: Automatic CAC scoring shows excellent agreement with the reference standard for both 1.5 and 3 mm scans but results in lower agreement in the CAC severity category for 1.5 mm scans.
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.