ReviewCureus2025
Advances in Artificial Intelligence for Non-ECG-Gated Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping cardiology, with notable progress in calcium scoring for cardiovascular risk stratification. Emerging approaches now enable AI-driven scoring on non-ECG-gated chest CT, yet questions remain about comparative accuracy and real-world utility. This review synthesizes current work on AI applications in non-ECG-gated coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring and subsequent cardiac risk assessment. We outline typical model inputs, development strategies, performance characteristics, and use cases across diverse care settings. Across the literature, AI-generated CAC scores generally show strong agreement with manual methods and support effective risk stratification, while markedly reducing processing time and workflow burden. Reported classifications align with clinically relevant outcomes, suggesting the potential to enhance the early identification of at-risk patients and streamline population-level screening. Despite promising results, heterogeneity in datasets, evaluation metrics, and deployment environments limits head-to-head comparisons and broad generalization. Implementation challenges, including image quality variation, integration with reporting pipelines, and oversight of edge cases, also warrant attention. Overall, AI for non-ECG-gated CAC scoring appears accurate, efficient, and clinically useful, with meaningful potential to improve cardiovascular risk assessment when thoughtfully validated and integrated into routine 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.