ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Agreement and workflow efficiency of AI-based coronary artery calcification quantification in lung cancer screening: Comparison with semi-automated and visual assessment.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate agreement and workflow implications of fully automated AI-based coronary artery calcification (CAC) quantification on non-ECG-gated low-dose CT in lung cancer screening, compared with semi-automated (SA) and visual assessment. Materials and methods: In this retrospective single-center study, 323 participants (55.7% male; median age 61 years; 52-79 years) undergoing low-dose CT for lung cancer screening were included. CAC was quantified using SA and AI-based Agatston scoring. Two readers performed visual grading. Agreement between SA and AI was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Spearman correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis. Categorical agreement (CAD-RADS 2.0 plaque burden) and CAC detection were evaluated using weighted Cohen's κ and diagnostic metrics. CAC processing times for were compared. Results: AI-based and semi-automated Agatston scores showed excellent agreement (ICC 0.96) and strong correlation (Spearman r = 0.97), with a small bias (21.5) and moderate limits of agreement. AI achieved high diagnostic performance for excluding CAC (sensitivity 0.97, 95%-CI, 0.92-0.99; specificity 0.91, 95%-CI, 0.86-0.94). Categorical agreement between AI and SA was almost perfect (κ 0.92) and higher than agreement between SA and visual assessment (κ 0.84 and 0.68). SA scoring required substantially longer processing time (102.0 ± 95.7 s) compared with visual assessment (15.5 ± 6.0 s and 24.2 ± 7.4 s; Conclusion: AI-based CAC quantification on non-ECG-gated low-dose CT demonstrates excellent agreement compared to semi-automated scoring, with higher categorical agreement than visual assessment and no requirement for manual scoring. AI-based approaches may facilitate standardized and scalable CAC reporting in lung cancer screening without additional reading time.
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.