2022
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-09117-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fully automatic coronary calcium scoring in non-ECG-gated low-dose chest CT: comparison with ECG-gated cardiac CT

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“… 12 , 13 CAC was measured with a 3-dimensional U-net architecture-based scoring tool previously validated in electrocardiography-gated and non–electrocardiography-gated LDCTs. 14 16 The software was also tested in a subgroup of BioMILD participants to assess its longitudinal reproducibility and agreement with manual evaluation, showing consistent results (Table S1, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JTI/A248 and Table S2, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JTI/A248 ). CAC scores were stratified using prespecified Agatston score strata of 0 to 99, 100 to 399, and ≥400, in keeping with the risk categorization adopted in the low-dose cardiac CT population of the Risk Or Benefit IN Screening for CArdiovascular diseases (ROBINSCA) trial.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“… 12 , 13 CAC was measured with a 3-dimensional U-net architecture-based scoring tool previously validated in electrocardiography-gated and non–electrocardiography-gated LDCTs. 14 16 The software was also tested in a subgroup of BioMILD participants to assess its longitudinal reproducibility and agreement with manual evaluation, showing consistent results (Table S1, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JTI/A248 and Table S2, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JTI/A248 ). CAC scores were stratified using prespecified Agatston score strata of 0 to 99, 100 to 399, and ≥400, in keeping with the risk categorization adopted in the low-dose cardiac CT population of the Risk Or Benefit IN Screening for CArdiovascular diseases (ROBINSCA) trial.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…Emphysema was quantified using the percentage of lung volume occupied by voxels with attenuation of −950 HU or less (percentage of low attenuation areas, %LAA) 12,13 . CAC was measured with a 3-dimensional U-net architecture-based scoring tool previously validated in electrocardiography-gated and non–electrocardiography-gated LDCTs 14–16 . The software was also tested in a subgroup of BioMILD participants to assess its longitudinal reproducibility and agreement with manual evaluation, showing consistent results (Table S1, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JTI/A248 and Table S2, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JTI/A248).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…AI-based approaches have been increasingly employed in CAC evaluation as supported by data demonstrating automated CAC reliable performances compared with the reference standard of manual assessment [ 4 , 22 24 ]. In the present study, we employed an AI-based software validated on non-electrocardiogram (ECG)–gated LDCT using multi-institutional datasets with manual CAC scoring as the reference standard [ 25 ]. The same software yielded better diagnostic performance with 1-mm than 2.5-mm LDCT images [ 9 ], supporting our method of analyzing the thinnest reconstruction available.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The recent development of artificial intelligence (AI) makes automatic CAC scoring feasible [ 28 29 ]. Consequently, the clinical application of AI-based automatic CAC scoring has been extended to chest CT [ 30 31 ]. Automatic CAC scoring on low-dose chest CT showed excellent reliability with manual CAC scoring, but the reliability of CAC score-based severity categorization varies among datasets with different scan protocols [ 30 32 ] Therefore, the improvement of an AI-based automatic scoring algorithm specific to the scanning protocol is necessary to apply automatic CAC scoring to chest CT.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, the clinical application of AI-based automatic CAC scoring has been extended to chest CT [ 30 31 ]. Automatic CAC scoring on low-dose chest CT showed excellent reliability with manual CAC scoring, but the reliability of CAC score-based severity categorization varies among datasets with different scan protocols [ 30 32 ] Therefore, the improvement of an AI-based automatic scoring algorithm specific to the scanning protocol is necessary to apply automatic CAC scoring to chest CT. In contrast, the modified length-based grading method suggested in our study has advantages in that it is less affected by the scan protocols.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%