Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38630211›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2024

Assessment of atherosclerotic plaque burden: comparison of AI-QCT versus SIS, CAC, visual and CAD-RADS stenosis categories.

Hufsa Khan, Kopal Bansal, William F Griffin, Catherine Cantlay, Alfateh Sidahmed, Nick S Nurmohamed, Robert K Zeman, Richard J Katz, Ron Blankstein, James P Earls and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Hufsa Khan *Division of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Kopal Bansal *Division of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
William F GriffinDepartment of Radiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Catherine CantlayDivision of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Alfateh SidahmedDivision of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Nick S NurmohamedDivision of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Robert K ZemanDepartment of Radiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Richard J KatzDivision of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Ron BlanksteinCardiovascular Division and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
James P EarlsDepartment of Radiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Andrew D ChoiDivision of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. adchoi@mfa.gwu.edu.
George Washington University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assesses the agreement of Artificial Intelligence-Quantitative Computed Tomography (AI-QCT) with qualitative approaches to atherosclerotic disease burden codified in the multisociety 2022 CAD-RADS 2.0 Expert Consensus. 105 patients who underwent cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for chest pain were evaluated by a blinded core laboratory through FDA-cleared software (Cleerly, Denver, CO) that performs AI-QCT through artificial intelligence, analyzing factors such as % stenosis, plaque volume, and plaque composition. AI-QCT plaque volume was then staged by recently validated prognostic thresholds, and compared with CAD-RADS 2.0 clinical methods of plaque evaluation (segment involvement score (SIS), coronary artery calcium score (CACS), visual assessment, and CAD-RADS percent (%) stenosis) by expert consensus blinded to the AI-QCT core lab reads. Average age of subjects were 59 ± 11 years; 44% women, with 50% of patients at CAD-RADS 1-2 and 21% at CAD-RADS 3 and above by expert consensus. AI-QCT quantitative plaque burden staging had excellent agreement of 93% (k = 0.87 95% CI: 0.79-0.96) with SIS. There was moderate agreement between AI-QCT quantitative plaque volume and categories of visual assessment (64.4%; k = 0.488 [0.38-0.60]), and CACS (66.3%; k = 0.488 [0.36-0.61]). Agreement between AI-QCT plaque volume stage and CAD-RADS % stenosis category was also moderate. There was discordance at small plaque volumes. With ongoing validation, these results demonstrate a potential for AI-QCT as a rapid, reproducible approach to quantify total plaque burden.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceComputed Tomography AngiographyCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary StenosisPlaque, AtheroscleroticPredictive Value of TestsSeverity of Illness IndexVascular CalcificationAgedCoronary VesselsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultidetector Computed TomographyAIAtherosclerosisCACSCAD-RADSCCTAPlaque burdenSIS

Identifiers

PMID38630211
PMCPMC11213790
OpenAlexW4394873734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.