ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of an artificial intelligence model for opportunistic Agatston scoring on non-gated chest computed tomography.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement and workflow efficiency of AI-based coronary artery calcification quantification in lung cancer screening: Comparison with semi-automated and visual assessment.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Aortic Arch Calcification on Chest Radiographs: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Agatston score is a measure of cardiovascular disease traditionally calculated on cardiac gated computed tomography (CT) of the chest. Cardiac gated CT is resource-intensive, can be hard to access, and involves extra radiation exposure. Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to opportunistically calculate Agatston scores on non-gated CTs performed for other indications. This retrospective standalone performance assessment compared the accuracy of an AI model (Riverain Technologies ClearRead CT CAC) at calculating Agatston scores on non-gated CTs to both consensus radiologist interpretations on the same CTs and Agatston scores from the original radiology reports of paired cardiac gated CTs. It involved 491 non-contrast CT chest cases acquired at five hospitals in the United States between January 2022 and December 2023; approximately two-thirds had a paired cardiac gated CT. It compared the agreement of Agatston categories (0, 1-99, 100-399 and ≥ 400) using the quadratic weighted Kappa coefficient and the correlation of Agatston scores using the Spearman coefficient. The agreement of Agatston categories between the AI model and ground truth radiologists was 0.959 (95% CI: 0.943 to 0.975); this result was broadly consistent across sex, age group, race, ethnicity and CT scanner manufacturer subgroups. The agreement between the AI model and paired cardiac gated CT was 0.906 (95% CI: 0.882 to 0.927). The correlations of Agatston scores for these two comparisons were 0.975 (95% CI: 0.962 to 0.987) and 0.942 (95% CI: 0.920 to 0.957) respectively. The assessed AI model accurately calculated Agatston scores on non-gated CTs and produced similar scores to paired cardiac gated CTs. Its use could broaden screening for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, enabling opportunistic screening on CTs captured for other indications.
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.