ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Impact of scanning parameters on deep learning coronary artery calcium scoring in non‑gated chest CT.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the accuracy of deep learning–derived coronary artery calcium scores (DL‑CACS) from non–electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated chest CT against ECG‑gated reference CACS and to determine the impact of CT acquisition parameters on measurement accuracy.
methodsFrom January 2020 to February 2021, 1213 patients at our institution underwent ECG‑gated cardiac CT and non‑gated chest CT within 3 months. An automated pipeline generated DL‑CACS from non‑gated scans. Agreement with ECG‑gated CACS was assessed using Spearman correlation and Bland–Altman analysis; kappa analysis evaluated categorical agreement for the Coronary Artery Calcium Data and Reporting System (CAC‑DRS). Diagnostic performance was evaluated by ROC/AUC. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression quantified associations between acquisition parameters and misclassification.
resultsNon‑gated DL‑CACS correlated strongly with gated CACS across LM, LAD, LCX, RCA and TOTAL scores (ρ ≤ 0.865; all p < 0.001). CAC‑DRS agreement was substantial (κ = 0.641), with accuracy 77.5% and AUC 0.769 (95% CI 0.754–0.785). Collimation width, rotation time, reconstruction slice thickness and reconstruction kernel were independent predictors of misclassification; tube voltage and pitch were not significant. Narrower collimation, slower rotation, thicker slices and smoother kernels were associated with higher odds of misclassification.
conclusionsDL‑based CACS from non–ECG‑gated chest CT shows good agreement with ECG‑gated CACS and useful accuracy, although performance remains sensitive to acquisition settings. In the future, protocol standardisation and algorithm robustness across vendors and parameters may further enhance clinical utility, supporting more consistent performance across sites and facilitating broader adoption in 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.