ArticleDigital health
Validation of artificial intelligence-based quantitative coronary angiography.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Beyond CABG vs. PCI: Contemporary and Future Coronary Revascularisation from Historical Evolution to Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Hybrid Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronary angiography is fundamental for the diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease. Manual quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is accurate and reproducible; however, it is time-consuming and labor-intensive. However, recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled automated and rapid analysis of medical images, addressing the need for real-time quantitative coronary analysis. Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of AI-based QCA (AI-QCA) compared with that via manual QCA and clinician acceptance. Methods: This retrospective, single-center study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 was a pilot study comparing AI-QCA with manual QCA and visual estimation. It involved 15 patients who underwent coronary angiography at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital between September 2011 and July 2021. Phase 2 included a larger cohort of 762 patients, with 1002 coronary angiograms analyzed between May 2020 and April 2021. Results: In phase 1, AI-QCA and manual QCA consistency varied among the observers, with AI-QCA showing superior consistency compared with visual estimation. However, a strong correlation between AI-QCA and manual-QCA was found in phase 2. AI-QCA accurately identified and quantitatively analyzed multiple lesions in the major vessels, providing results comparable with those of manual QCA. Conclusions: AI-QCA demonstrated high concordance with manual QCA, offering real-time analysis and reduced workload. Therefore, AI-QCA has the potential to be a valuable tool for diagnosing and treating coronary artery disease, necessitating further studies for clinical validation.
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.