ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2023
Coronary computed tomography angiography analysis using artificial intelligence for stenosis quantification and stent segmentation: a multicenter 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 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.
- Comparative assessment of non-invasive imaging methods for coronary artery disease: coronary computed tomography angiography, computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio computed tomography.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- Automatic diagnosis of coronary artery stenosis by deep learning based on X-ray coronary angiography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Identification of Images with Active Bleeding in Mesenteric and Celiac Arteries Angiography.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Imaging: Current Landscape, Clinical Impact, and Future Directions.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)Review
- Enhancing coronary artery plaque analysis via artificial intelligence-driven cardiovascular computed tomography.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate interpretation of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is a labor-intensive and expertise-driven endeavor, as inexperienced readers may inadvertently overestimate stenosis severity. Recent artificial intelligence (AI) advances in medical imaging present compelling prospects for auxiliary diagnostic tools in CCTA. This study aimed to externally validate an AI-assisted analysis system capable of rapidly evaluating stenosis severity, exploring its potential integration into routine clinical workflows. Methods: This multicenter study consisted of an internal and external cohort of patients who underwent CCTA scans between April 2017 and February 2023. CCTA scans were evaluated using Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) scores to determine stenosis severity, while ground-truth stents were manually annotated by expert readers. The InferRead CT Heart (version 1.6; Infervision Medical Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China), which incorporates AI-assisted coronary artery stenosis quantification and automatic stent segmentation, was employed for CCTA scan analysis. AI-based stenosis assessment performance was determined using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), while the AI-based stent segmentation overlap was assessed using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Results: For ≥50% stenosis diagnoses, the AI system attained per-patient sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV surpassing 90.0% for the internal dataset; for the external dataset, the per-patient values were 88.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 81.0-94.4%], 94.5% (95% CI: 90.7-97.6%), 90.0% (95% CI: 83.3-95.6%), and 93.4% (95% CI: 89.2-96.8%), respectively. For ≥70% stenosis diagnoses, the per-patient values on the internal dataset were 94.2% (95% CI: 89.2-98.1%), 95.8% (95% CI: 94.1-97.4%), 80.8% (95% CI: 73.5-87.7%), and 98.9% (95% CI: 97.9-99.6%), respectively; for the external dataset, the per-patient values were 91.9% (95% CI: 82.6-100.0%), 97.3% (95% CI: 94.9-99.1%), 85.0% (95% CI: 72.5-94.6%), and 98.6% (95% CI: 96.8-100.0%), respectively. Regarding CAD-RADS categorization, the Cohen kappa was 0.75 and 0.81 for the internal per-patient and per-vessel basis, respectively, and 0.72 and 0.76 for the external per-patient and per-vessel basis, respectively. The DSC for stent segmentation was 0.96±0.06. Conclusions: The AI-assisted analysis system for CCTA interpretation exhibited exceptional proficiency in stenosis quantification and stent segmentation, indicating that AI holds considerable potential in advancing CCTA postprocessing techniques.
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.