ArticleScientific reports2024
Automatic identification of coronary stent in coronary calcium scoring CT using deep learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in coronary artery calcification scoring: Current progress and future directions.Global cardiology science & practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring CT is a useful tool for screening coronary artery disease and for cardiovascular risk stratification. However, its efficacy in patients with coronary stents, who had pre-existing coronary artery disease, remains uncertain. Historically, CAC CT scans of these patients have been manually excluded from the CAC scoring process, even though most of the CAC scoring process is now fully automated. Therefore, we hypothesized that automating the filtering of patients with coronary stents using artificial intelligence could streamline the entire CAC workflow, eliminating the need for manual intervention. Consequently, we aimed to develop and evaluate a deep learning-based coronary stent filtering algorithm (StentFilter) in CAC scoring CT scans using a multicenter CAC dataset. We developed StentFilter comprising two main processes: stent identification and false-positive reduction. Development utilized 108 non-enhanced echocardiography-gated CAC scans (including 74 with manually labeled stents), and for false positive reduction, 2063 CAC scans with significant coronary calcium (average Agatston score: 523.8) but no stents were utilized. StentFilter's performance was evaluated on two independent internal test sets (Asan cohort- and 2; n = 355 and 396; one without coronary stents) and two external test sets from different institutions (n = 105 and 62), each with manually labeled stents. We calculated the per-patient sensitivity, specificity, and false-positive rate of StentFilter. StentFilter demonstrated a high overall per-patient sensitivity of 98.8% (511/517 cases with stents) and a false-positive rate of 0.022 (20/918). Notably, the false-positive ratio was significantly lower in the dataset containing stents (Asan cohort-1; 0.008 [3/355]) compared with the dataset without stents (Asan cohort-2; 0.043 [17/396], p = 0.008). All false-positive identifications were attributed to dense coronary calcifications, with no false positives identified in extracoronary locations. The automated StentFilter accurately distinguished coronary stents from pre-existing coronary calcifications. This approach holds potential as a filter within a fully automated CAC scoring workflow, streamlining the process efficiently.
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.