ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Deep learning-based obstructive coronary artery disease prediction from myocardial perfusion SPECT.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for detecting coronary artery disease: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2026Pooled it
- Comparing machine learning models and traditional approaches for predicting obstructive coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Construction and validation of a diagnostic model for obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with suspected unstable angina pectoris based on restingQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Machine learning and multi-omics technologies for precision cardiovascular medicine: advancing diagnosis, risk prediction, and therapeutic guidance.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe aim to apply the deep learning (DL) technique to predict the gold-standard invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnosis, from non-invasive myocardial perfusion SPECT (MP-SPECT).
methodsA total of 515 anonymized patients from 3 clinical centers (primary: 212; external-1:108; external-2:195) underwent standard one-day Tc-99m-sestamibi or Tl-201 stress/rest MP-SPECT protocol were retrospectively recruited. DL models have been proposed for DL-based attenuation correction (DLAC), per-patient and per-vessel obstructive CAD prediction respectively. DL prediction models were trained with no AC (NAC), DLAC and CT-based AC (CTAC) data, as well as stress, combined stress and rest data (stress/rest) and 2-channel stress + rest input. Clinical factors were incorporated into the DL models to improve the prediction outcome. The accuracy and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were analyzed.
resultsFor per-patient analysis, the AUC was 0.57 for TPD-based diagnosis, and was 0.59, 0.77, and 0.84 for the stress-only, stress/rest and stress + rest input with CTAC in the primary dataset. The AUC of the CTAC-based stress + rest was further increased to 0.92 by clinical factors of gender, age and hypertension diagnosis. For per-vessel analysis, the AUC with the same clinical factors was 0.80. DLAC has improved AUC for different input as compared to NAC in both primary and external datasets and for both per-patient and per-vessel analysis.
conclusionsThe DL-based AC, CTAC, combination of stress and rest polar plots and the incorporation of clinical information can enhance prediction performance of CAD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41247514What 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.