ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2025
Cardiologist user experience of artificial intelligence-based quantitative coronary angiography.
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence-assisted quantitative coronary angiography (AI-QCA) has been developed to enable the automated, objective assessment of coronary artery stenosis without human intervention. Previous studies have shown its accuracy compared with manual QCA and intravascular ultrasound. In this study, we aimed to evaluate cardiologists' experience of analyzing coronary lesions with AI-QCA. Methods: Ten board-certified cardiologists from multiple centers specializing in coronary intervention, with varying periods of experience, participated in this study. They analyzed angiograms from 180 patients with marked coronary stenosis requiring coronary revascularization. Correlations between manual QCA and AI-QCA were measured by using Pearson's or Spearman's correlation coefficients. Results: The average System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 66.7, indicating marginal high acceptability. The angiographic frame selected by the cardiologists with AI-QCA assistance was within five frames of that elected by the QCA analyst in 64.2% of cases. Furthermore, the time taken by cardiologists to analyze angiograms with AI-QCA assistance was 1.5±0.9 s, significantly lower than that required by an expert analyst to perform manual QCA (88.1±35.5 s, P<0.001). Key angiographic variables, such as reference vessel diameter (RD), minimal lumen diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis (DS), and lesional length (LL), showed moderate-to-strong correlations between AI-QCA and manual QCA (e.g., distal reference diameter, R=0.74). Conclusions: This prospective study showed that automated analysis with AI-QCA can be performed with an acceptable user experience as well as minimal human intervention and little additional time. Therefore, the application of AI-QCA in the Cath lab is feasible and potentially helpful during coronary angiography (CAG) and intervention.
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.