ArticlePloS one2026
Automatic segmentation of coronary plaques in coronary CT angiography using neural networks.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
Rapid and accurate detection of coronary plaques on CCTA is critical for timely CAD diagnosis but is limited by reader workload and interobserver variability. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of machine learning (ML) based on automated segmentation of coronary plaques in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). We retrospectively analyzed CCTA scans from 1,642 patients (4,711 training vessels, 1,112 test vessels, plus 1,613 negative vessels) using an nnU-Net 3D full resolution architecture. Hyperparameters (batch size, learning-rate scheduler, epochs) were optimized on a 10% subset of the training dataset, and the final model was trained with 5-fold cross-validation on positive cases. Test performance was assessed at the plaque, vessel, and exam levels. Of 2,090 ground-truth plaques, the model achieved 1,772 TP for 84.8% sensitivity (95% CI 83.2-86.3%), 382 FP for 82.3% precision (95% CI 80.6-83.8), and a median Dice score of 0.88 (95% CI 0.87-0.89). At the vessel level, sensitivity was 94.7% (95% CI 93.2-95.9%) and specificity was 84.9% (95% CI 83.0-86.5%). At the examination level, sensitivity was 97.4% (95% CI 94.5-98.8%) and specificity was 79.7% (95% CI 76.5-82.6%). Detection of small, non-calcified plaques remained challenging, and false positives were often due to motion or step artifacts. Our model showed promising results in detecting coronary plaques in CCTA examinations, particularly for medium to large plaques and high negative predictive value for ruling out significant CAD, offering potential to streamline radiology workflows. Future work will focus on small-plaque detection, artifact robustness, and multi-center validation to enhance clinical utility.
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.