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]

Objectives: To validate a method for performing myocardial segmentation based on coronary anatomy using coronary CT angiography (CCTA).Methods: Coronary artery-based myocardial segmentation (CAMS) was developed for use with CCTA. To validate and compare this method with the conventional American Heart Association (AHA) classification, a single coronary occlusion model was prepared and validated using six pigs. The unstained occluded coronary territories of the specimens and corresponding arterial territories from CAMS and AHA segmentations were compared using slice-by-slice matching and 100 virtual myocardial columns.Results: CAMS more precisely predicted ischaemic area than the AHA method, as indicated by 95% versus 76% (p < 0.001) of the percentage of matched columns (defined as percentage of matched columns of segmentation method divided by number of unstained columns in the specimen). According to the subgroup analyses, CAMS demonstrated a higher percentage of matched columns than the AHA method in the left anterior descending artery (100% vs. 77%; p < 0.001) and mid- (99% vs. 83%; p = 0.046) and apical-level territories of the left ventricle (90% vs. 52%; p = 0.011).Conclusions: CAMS is a feasible method for identifying the corresponding myocardial territories of the coronary arteries using CCTA.Key Points: • CAMS is a feasible method for identifying corresponding coronary territory using CTA • CAMS is more accurate in predicting coronary territory than the AHA method • The AHA method may underestimate the ischaemic territory of LAD stenosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]