ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Automated AI-based coronary calcium scoring using retrospective CT data from SCAPIS is accurate and correlates with expert scoring.
Article in European radiology, 2025. 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.
- Deep learning predicts stent implantation in borderline coronary lesions from angiography.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in coronary artery calcification scoring: Current progress and future directions.Global cardiology science & practice · 2025Review
- Can Artificial Intelligence Help Us in the Evaluation of Coronary Artery Calcification Scores by Acting as a Prognosticator in Patients That Are Operated on Due to Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer? A Pivotal Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEvaluation of the correlation and agreement between AI and semi-automatic evaluations of calcium scoring CT (CSCT) examinations using extensive data from the Swedish CardioPulmonary bio-Image study (SCAPIS). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn total, 5057 CSCT examinations were performed on one CT system at Linköping University Hospital between October 8, 2015, and June 12, 2018. AI evaluations were compared to semi-automatic CSCT results from expert reader evaluations rendered within SCAPIS. Pearson correlation, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland-Altman analysis were applied for Agatston (AS), volume (VS), mass scores (MS), number of lesions and lesion location. Agreement of Agatston score classifications into cardiovascular (CV) risk categories was evaluated with weighted kappa analysis.
resultsThe evaluation included 4567 subjects, 2229 (48.8%) male, 2338 (51.2%) female, 50-64 years of age (mean 57.3 ± 4.4). The AS ranged from 0 to 2871 in the cohort, with 2846 subjects having an AS of 0. Mean and median AS were 51.4 and 0.0, respectively. Total AS, VS, MS and number of lesions ICCs were 0.994, 0.994, 0.994, 0.960 (p < 0.001), respectively. Bland-Altman analyses rendered mean differences ± 1.96 SD upper and lower limits of agreement for AS -0.04, -52.5 to 52.4, VS -0.44, -46.51 to 45.63, and MS -0.07, -9.62 to 9.48. Weighted kappa analysis for CV risk category classifications was 0.913, and overall accuracy was 91.2%.
conclusionThere was excellent correlation and agreement between AI and semi-automatic evaluations for all calcium scores, number of lesions and lesion location. High degrees of agreement and accuracy were found for the CV risk categorization. KEY POINTS: Question Can AI function as a tool for enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of Coronary Artery Calcium Score (CACS) evaluations in clinical radiology practice? Findings This study confirms the robustness of AI-derived CACS results across extensive datasets, though its generalizability is limited by data acquisition from a single CT system. Clinical relevance This study suggests that AI holds significant promise as a tool for enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of CACS evaluations, with implications for improving patient diagnostics and reducing radiologist workload in clinical practice.
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.