We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Fully automatic coronary calcium scoring in non-ECG-gated low-dose chest CT: comparison with ECG-gated cardiac CT.
- Authors
Suh, Young Joo; Kim, Cherry; Lee, June-Goo; Oh, Hongmin; Kang, Heejun; Kim, Young-Hak; Yang, Dong Hyun
- Abstract
Objectives: To validate an artificial intelligence (AI)–based fully automatic coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring system on non-electrocardiogram (ECG)–gated low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) using multi-institutional datasets with manual CAC scoring as the reference standard. Methods: This retrospective study included 452 subjects from three academic institutions, who underwent both ECG-gated calcium scoring computed tomography (CSCT) and LDCT scans. For all CSCT and LDCT scans, automatic CAC scoring (CAC_auto) was performed using AI-based software, and manual CAC scoring (CAC_man) was set as the reference standard. The reliability and agreement of CAC_auto was evaluated and compared with that of CAC_man using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots. The reliability between CAC_auto and CAC_man for CAC severity categories was analyzed using weighted kappa (κ) statistics. Results: CAC_auto on CSCT and LDCT yielded a high ICC (0.998, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.998–0.999 and 0.989, 95% CI 0.987–0.991, respectively) and a mean difference with 95% limits of agreement of 1.3 ± 37.1 and 0.8 ± 75.7, respectively. CAC_auto achieved excellent reliability for CAC severity (κ = 0.918–0.972) on CSCT and good to excellent but heterogenous reliability among datasets (κ = 0.748–0.924) on LDCT. Conclusions: The application of an AI-based automatic CAC scoring software to LDCT shows good to excellent reliability in CAC score and CAC severity categorization in multi-institutional datasets; however, the reliability varies among institutions. Key Points: • AI-based automatic CAC scoring on LDCT shows excellent reliability with manual CAC scoring in multi-institutional datasets. • The reliability for CAC score–based severity categorization varies among datasets. • Automatic scoring for LDCT shows a higher false-positive rate than automatic scoring for CSCT, and most common causes of a false-positive are image noise and artifacts for both CSCT and LDCT.
- Subjects
ARTIFICIAL intelligence; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; COMPUTED tomography; CALCIUM; CORONARY arteries
- Publication
European Radiology, 2023, Vol 33, Issue 2, p1254
- ISSN
0938-7994
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1007/s00330-022-09117-3