ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating the generalizability of an automated coronary artery calcium segmentation and scoring algorithm using multi-vendor dataset.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Towards Fixing Vessel Segmentation Breakage: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Real-World Implementation of Artificial Intelligence: Fully Automated Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- CycleGAN-based image-to-image translation for synthetic contrast enhancement in non-contrast cardiac CT: a ViT-CNN hybrid deep learning approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coronary artery calcification score (CACS), also known as the Agatston score, is a significant prognostic tool for cardiovascular disease (CVD) that utilizes computed tomography (CT). We expand our previously proposed algorithm, Residual-block Inspired Coordinate Attention U-Net (RICAU-Net), to evaluate its generalizability on CT data from previously unseen scanners for lesion-specific CAC segmentation. The multi-vendor datasets were 1,108 CT scans acquired by Siemens, GE, Philips, and Toshiba. We created four groups of datasets, using data from the three scanners as the training and validation sets, while the last one as the test set to evaluate the algorithm on data from previously unseen scanners. RICAU-Net was trained using the datasets for automatic lesion-specific CAC segmentation and calcium scoring. The performance of lesion-specific segmentation and calcium scoring were evaluated using per-lesion Dice scores and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). And Bland-Altman plot analysis was conducted to examine the agreement between the CAC score derived from the prediction results and the ground truth. The proposed algorithm exhibited a mean absolute difference of less than 5% between the per-lesion Dice scores of the validation and test sets, indicating good generalizability on test sets comprised of data from unseen scanners during the training and validation phases. ICC analysis demonstrates that the Agatston scores calculated using predictions from RICAU-Net and manual segmentation exhibited excellent reliability at the per-patient level across all groups with ICC and 95% confidence intervals: 0.95 (0.95-0.96), 0.99 (0.99-1.00), 0.99 (0.99-0.99), and 1.00 (0.99-1.00) for group 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Our algorithm demonstrates generalized performance on data from previously unseen scanners, making it potentially more suitable and practical for real-world clinical settings, where it will encounter diverse scanners from various organizations. Furthermore, a feasibility study using non-contrast chest CT scans indicates that the performance of our cardiac CT-trained algorithm on chest CT images was acceptable to a certain extent.
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.