Artificial intelligence-derived coronary artery calcium scoring saves time and achieves close to radiologist-level accuracy accuracy on routine ECG-gated CT.

Jordan H Chamberlin, Sameer Abrol, James Munford, Jim O'Doherty, Dhiraj Baruah, U Joseph Schoepf, Jeremy R Burt, Ismail M Kabakus
{"title":"Artificial intelligence-derived coronary artery calcium scoring saves time and achieves close to radiologist-level accuracy accuracy on routine ECG-gated CT.","authors":"Jordan H Chamberlin, Sameer Abrol, James Munford, Jim O'Doherty, Dhiraj Baruah, U Joseph Schoepf, Jeremy R Burt, Ismail M Kabakus","doi":"10.1007/s10554-024-03306-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been proposed to improve workflow for coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS), but simultaneous demonstration of improved efficiency, accuracy, and clinical stability have not been demonstrated. 148 sequential patients who underwent routine calcium-scoring computed tomography were retrospectively evaluated using a previously validated AI model (syngo. CT CaScoring VB60, Siemens Healthineers, Forscheim, Germany). CACS was performed by manual (Expert alone), semi-automatic (AI + expert review), and automatic (AI alone) methods. Time to complete and intraclass correlation coefficients were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included differences in multiethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA) percentiles and stratification by calcium severity. AI and expert CACS agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.951; 95% CI 0.933-0.964). The global median time was 15 ± 2 s for AI (\"Automatic\"), 38 ± 13 s for the AI + manual review (\"Semiautomatic\") and 45 ± 24 s for the manual segmentation. Automatic segmentation was faster than manual segmentation for all CACS severities (P < 0.001). AI computational time was independent of calcium burden. Global mean bias in Agatston score across all patients was 7.4 ± 102.6. The mean bias for global MESA score percentile was 2.1% ± 12%. 95% of error corresponded to a ± 10% difference in MESA score. The use of AI for CACS performs excellent accuracy, saves approximately 60% of time in comparison to manual review, and demonstrates low bias for clinical risk profiles. Time benefits are magnified for patients with high CACS. However, a semi-automatic approach is still recommended to minimize potential errors while maintaining efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":94227,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of cardiovascular imaging","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of cardiovascular imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-024-03306-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been proposed to improve workflow for coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS), but simultaneous demonstration of improved efficiency, accuracy, and clinical stability have not been demonstrated. 148 sequential patients who underwent routine calcium-scoring computed tomography were retrospectively evaluated using a previously validated AI model (syngo. CT CaScoring VB60, Siemens Healthineers, Forscheim, Germany). CACS was performed by manual (Expert alone), semi-automatic (AI + expert review), and automatic (AI alone) methods. Time to complete and intraclass correlation coefficients were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included differences in multiethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA) percentiles and stratification by calcium severity. AI and expert CACS agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.951; 95% CI 0.933-0.964). The global median time was 15 ± 2 s for AI ("Automatic"), 38 ± 13 s for the AI + manual review ("Semiautomatic") and 45 ± 24 s for the manual segmentation. Automatic segmentation was faster than manual segmentation for all CACS severities (P < 0.001). AI computational time was independent of calcium burden. Global mean bias in Agatston score across all patients was 7.4 ± 102.6. The mean bias for global MESA score percentile was 2.1% ± 12%. 95% of error corresponded to a ± 10% difference in MESA score. The use of AI for CACS performs excellent accuracy, saves approximately 60% of time in comparison to manual review, and demonstrates low bias for clinical risk profiles. Time benefits are magnified for patients with high CACS. However, a semi-automatic approach is still recommended to minimize potential errors while maintaining efficiency.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工智能冠状动脉钙化评分节省了时间,在常规心电图门控 CT 上达到了接近放射科医师水平的准确性。
人工智能(AI)已被提出用于改善冠状动脉钙化评分(CACS)的工作流程,但同时提高效率、准确性和临床稳定性的效果尚未得到证实。我们使用之前验证过的人工智能模型(syngo. CT CaScoring VB60, Siemens Healthineers, Forscheim, Germany)对 148 例连续接受常规钙化评分计算机断层扫描的患者进行了回顾性评估。CACS 采用人工(仅专家)、半自动(人工智能 + 专家审查)和自动(仅人工智能)方法进行。完成时间和类内相关系数是主要终点。次要终点包括多种族动脉粥样硬化研究(MESA)百分位数差异和钙化严重程度分层。人工智能和专家 CACS 的一致性非常好(ICC = 0.951;95% CI 0.933-0.964)。人工智能("自动")的全球中位时间为 15 ± 2 秒,人工智能+人工审核("半自动")的全球中位时间为 38 ± 13 秒,人工分割的全球中位时间为 45 ± 24 秒。就所有 CACS 严重程度而言,自动分段都比手动分段快(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Characterization of epicardial adipose tissue thickness and structure by ultrasound radiomics in acute and chronic coronary patients. Redundant and aneurysmal interatrial septum motion: a commentary on anatomical factors and clinical implications. Comparison of global and regional myocardial blood flow quantification using dynamic solid-state detector SPECT and Tc-99 m-sestamibi or Tc-99 m-tetrofosmin in a routine clinical setting. Myocardial extracellular volume fraction estimations using late enhancement CT in patients with atrial fibrillation: a comparative study with cardiac MR. When a common sore throat unmasks a rare disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1