ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Coronary stenosis assessment: AI-based CT quantification, visual analysis of invasive angiography, and quantitative coronary angiography.
Article in Insights into 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance for coronary stenosis of artificial intelligence (AI)-based CT quantification, manual CT quantification, and visual invasive coronary angiography (ICA) assessment against quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included patients who underwent both coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and ICA within 1 month. Diameter stenosis (DS) was quantified on CCTA images both automatically by a deep-learning model and manually by radiologists, and was assessed visually on ICA. Diagnostic performance for detecting obstructive stenosis (DS ≥ 50% and ≥ 70%) was assessed against QCA using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis on per-patient, per-vessel, and per-segment levels. Agreement with QCA was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsA total of 368 patients were included. AI-based CT quantification demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy. For DS ≥ 50%, area under the curves (AUCs) were 0.93 (per-patient), 0.94 (per-vessel), and 0.96 (per-segment). For DS ≥ 70%, AUCs were 0.85, 0.89, and 0.90, respectively. AI-based CT quantification significantly outperformed manual CT and visual ICA assessments at most levels in terms of AUC (all p < 0.05), except vs manual quantification by a senior radiologist at the segment level for ≥ 70% stenosis (p = 0.060). Bland-Altman analysis showed superior agreement between AI-based CT quantification of DS and QCA (mean differences: 1.5% per-patient, -0.7% per-vessel, -1.2% per-segment) compared with manual CT quantification and visual assessment of ICA.
conclusionsAI-based CT quantification demonstrated high diagnostic performance for obstructive stenosis with good agreement against QCA, outperforming manual CT quantification and visual assessment of ICA in most scenarios, with the exception of segment-level assessment of ≥ 70% DS compared with manual quantification by senior radiologists. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: AI-aided CT quantification outperforms both manual CT quantification and visual ICA analysis in diagnosing obstructive stenosis using QCA as the reference standard, providing an objective tool to reduce diagnostic uncertainty and guide subsequent patient management. KEY POINTS: Manual coronary stenosis quantification is subject to significant inter-observer variability. AI-based CT quantification outperforms both manual CT quantification and visual ICA analysis. Discordance between AI results and the angiographer's visual estimation should prompt a physiological evaluation.
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.