ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2025
Artificial intelligence-derived coronary artery calcium scoring saves time and achieves close to radiologist-level accuracy accuracy on routine ECG-gated CT.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Implementation of Artificial Intelligence: Fully Automated Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Review
- Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Imaging: Current Landscape, Clinical Impact, and Future Directions.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been proposed to improve workflow for coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS), but simultaneous demonstration of improved efficiency, accuracy, and clinical stability have not been demonstrated. 148 sequential patients who underwent routine calcium-scoring computed tomography were retrospectively evaluated using a previously validated AI model (syngo. CT CaScoring VB60, Siemens Healthineers, Forscheim, Germany). CACS was performed by manual (Expert alone), semi-automatic (AI + expert review), and automatic (AI alone) methods. Time to complete and intraclass correlation coefficients were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included differences in multiethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA) percentiles and stratification by calcium severity. AI and expert CACS agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.951; 95% CI 0.933-0.964). The global median time was 15 ± 2 s for AI ("Automatic"), 38 ± 13 s for the AI + manual review ("Semiautomatic") and 45 ± 24 s for the manual segmentation. Automatic segmentation was faster than manual segmentation for all CACS severities (P < 0.001). AI computational time was independent of calcium burden. Global mean bias in Agatston score across all patients was 7.4 ± 102.6. The mean bias for global MESA score percentile was 2.1% ± 12%. 95% of error corresponded to a ± 10% difference in MESA score. The use of AI for CACS performs excellent accuracy, saves approximately 60% of time in comparison to manual review, and demonstrates low bias for clinical risk profiles. Time benefits are magnified for patients with high CACS. However, a semi-automatic approach is still recommended to minimize potential errors while maintaining efficiency.
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.