ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
A deep learning-based algorithm for detecting significant in-stent restenosis in coronary CT angiography.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is widely used for monitoring patients after stent implantation, but beam-hardening and blooming artifacts make assessment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) challenging. This study developed and evaluated a deep learning algorithm for automated detection of significant ISR in CCTA images. A retrospective analysis of 257 patients with 408 stents was conducted, divided into a development set (n = 126 patients, 186 stents) and an internal validation set (n = 131 patients, 222 stents), with invasive coronary angiography serving as the reference standard. The algorithm's diagnostic performance was compared to two expert radiologists using standard diagnostic metrics. The deep learning algorithm achieved 87.8% accuracy (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.9-91.5%), with sensitivity of 75.4% (95% CI, 62.9-84.8%), specificity of 92.1% (95% CI, 87.0-95.3%), positive predictive value (PPV) of 76.8% (95% CI, 64.2-85.9%), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 91.6% (95% CI, 86.3-94.9%). McNemar's test revealed no significant differences in overall diagnostic accuracy between the algorithm and Reader1 (p = 0.133) or Reader2 (p = 0.150). Notably, the algorithm demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to both readers (43.9% [95% CI, 31.8-56.7%] and 56.1% [955% CI, 43.3-68.2%], p < 0.05) and higher NPV compared to Reader1 (p = 0.026). Subgroup analyses confirmed higher sensitivity across different scanner platforms and imaging conditions, including GE systems (p = 0.016) and 80 kilovoltage peak settings (p = 0.006). The deep learning algorithm demonstrated higher sensitivity for detecting significant ISR while maintaining comparable overall diagnostic accuracy to expert radiologists, although this was accompanied by numerically slightly lower specificity, supporting its potential as a decision-support tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42753113What 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.