Search

Objectives: To evaluate commercial deep learning–based software for fully automated coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring on non-electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated low-dose CT (LDCT) with different slice thicknesses compared with manual ECG-gated calcium-scoring CT (CSCT). Methods: This retrospective study included 567 patients who underwent both LDCT and CSCT. All LDCT images were reconstructed with a 2.5-mm slice thickness (LDCT2.5-mm), and 453 LDCT scans were reconstructed with a 1.0-mm slice thickness (LDCT1.0-mm). Automated CAC scoring was performed on CSCT (CSCTauto), LDCT1.0-mm, and LDCT2.5-mm images. The reliability of CSCTauto, LDCT1.0-mm, and LDCT2.5-mm was compared with manual CSCT scoring (CSCTmanual) using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis. Agreement, in CAC severity category, was analyzed using weighted kappa statistics. Diagnostic performance at various Agatston score cutoffs was also calculated. Results: CSCTauto, LDCT1.0-mm, and LDCT2.5-mm demonstrated excellent agreement with CSCTmanual (ICC [95% confidence interval, CI]: 1.000 [1.000, 1.000], 0.937 [0.917, 0.952], and 0.955 [0.946, 0.963], respectively). The mean difference with 95% limits of agreement was lower with LDCT1.0-mm than with LDCT2.5-mm (19.94 [95% CI, −244.0, 283.9] vs. 45.26 [−248.2, 338.7]). Regarding CAC severity, LDCT1.0-mm achieved almost perfect agreement, and LDCT2.5-mm achieved substantial agreement (kappa [95% CI]: 0.809 [0.776, 0.838], 0.776 [0.740, 0.809], respectively). Diagnostic performance for detecting Agatston score ≥ 400 was also higher with LDCT1.0-mm than with LDCT2.5-mm (F1 score, 0.929 vs. 0.855). Conclusions: Fully automated CAC-scoring software with both CSCT and LDCT yielded excellent reliability and agreement with CSCTmanual. LDCT1.0-mm yielded more accurate Agatston scoring than LDCT2.5-mm using fully automated commercial software. Key Points: • Total Agatston scores and all vessels of CSCTauto, LDCT1.0-mm, and LDCT2.5-mmdemonstrated excellent agreement with CSCTmanual(all ICC > 0.85). • The diagnostic performance for detecting all Agatston score cutoffs was better with LDCT1.0-mmthan with LDCT2.5-mm. • This automated software yielded a lower degree of underestimation compared with methods described in previous studies, and the degree of underestimation was lower with LDCT1.0-mmthan with LDCT2.5-mm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]