ArticleJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences2026
Evaluation of different artificial intelligence-based coronary artery calcium scoring algorithms in nongated chest computed tomography.
Article in Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 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
Background: To compare the accuracy of coronary artery calcium scores (CACSs) automatically measured by two artificial intelligence (AI) systems on nonelectrocardiogram (ECG)-gated chest computed tomography (CT) and to investigate the relationship between CACS and the degree of coronary artery stenosis. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 182 patients who underwent both ECG-gated Coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and non-ECG-gated chest CT. Images from all patients were processed using postprocessing software and two AI systems (Software A/B). The manually measured CACS by experienced physicians using ECG-gated Coronary CTA was used as the gold standard. The agreement between two AI systems and the gold standard was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. In addition, Spearman's correlation analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between CACS and the degree of coronary artery stenosis. Results: Both AI systems demonstrated high ICCs for CACS measurement (0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.871-0.926 for Software A; 0.96, 95% CI: 0.943-0.968 for Software B). The mean differences (95% limits of agreement) were 23.59 ± 442.35 for Software A and -80.35 ± 292.99 for Software B. Both systems showed good agreement in CACS measurement, with Software B exhibiting higher accuracy than Software A. Spearman's correlation analysis revealed weak-to-moderate positive correlations between CACS measured by different methods and the degree of coronary artery stenosis ( Conclusion: The two AI-based CACS systems, when applied to nongated chest CT, demonstrated consistency with manually measured CACS from ECG-gated coronary CTA. Software B showed superior accuracy compared to Software A. The correlation between CACS and the degree of vascular stenosis is influenced by vascular remodeling patterns, with positive remodeling reducing its consistency. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of vascular stenosis should integrate vascular remodeling patterns and other diagnostic indicators.
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.