ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Performance assessment of an artificial intelligence-based coronary artery calcium scoring algorithm in non-gated chest CT scans of different slice thickness.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying the impact of slice thickness on cardiovascular risk stratification in lung cancer screening: a multi-center "RESCUE" study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- The role of AI assistance in the evaluation of unenhanced chest CT scans in an emergency setting.Polish journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Advancements in Cardiac CT Imaging: The Era of Artificial Intelligence.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The coronary artery calcium score (CACS) has been shown to be an independent predictor of cardiovascular events. The traditional coronary artery calcium scoring algorithm has been optimized for electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated images, which are acquired with specific settings and timing. Therefore, if the artificial intelligence-based coronary artery calcium score (AI-CACS) could be calculated from a chest low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) examination, it could be valuable in assessing the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) in advance, and it could potentially reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events in patients. This study aimed to assess the performance of an AI-CACS algorithm in non-gated chest scans with three different slice thicknesses (1, 3, and 5 mm). Methods: A total of 135 patients who underwent both LDCT of the chest and ECG-gated non-contrast enhanced cardiac CT were prospectively included in this study. The Agatston scores were automatically derived from chest CT images reconstructed at slice thicknesses of 1, 3, and 5 mm using the AI-CACS software. These scores were then compared to those obtained from the ECG-gated cardiac CT data using a conventional semi-automatic method that served as the reference. The correlations between the AI-CACS and electrocardiogram-gated coronary artery calcium score (ECG-CACS) were analyzed, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement. Risk stratification was based on the calculated CACS, and the concordance rate was determined. Results: A total of 112 patients were included in the final analysis. The correlations between the AI-CACS at three different thicknesses (1, 3, and 5 mm) and the ECG-CACS were 0.973, 0.941, and 0.834 (all P<0.01), respectively. The Bland-Altman plots showed mean differences in the AI-CACS for the three thicknesses of -6.5, 15.4, and 53.1, respectively. The risk category agreement for the three AI-CACS groups was 0.868, 0.772, and 0.412 (all P<0.01), respectively. While the concordance rates were 91%, 84.8%, and 62.5%, respectively. Conclusions: The AI-based algorithm successfully calculated the CACS from LDCT scans of the chest, demonstrating its utility in risk categorization. Furthermore, the CACS derived from images with a slice thickness of 1 mm was more accurate than those obtained from images with slice thicknesses of 3 and 5 mm.
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.