ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2024
Assessment of atherosclerotic plaque burden: comparison of AI-QCT versus SIS, CAC, visual and CAD-RADS stenosis categories.
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.
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic value of AI-enabled quantitative coronary CT angiography for major adverse cardiovascular events: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-guided quantitative coronary CT assessment to rule-in or rule-out myocardial ischaemia.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2026Article
- CAD-RADS 2.0: Comparison of methods for assessment of plaque burden.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Using AI-Quantitative CT to evaluate the relationship between coronary artery calcium and segment involvement scores in quantifying coronary plaque burden.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Relationship between fetal-type posterior cerebral artery and basilar artery atherosclerosis.Frontiers in neurology · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.