Evidence mapPaperPMID 39800437Full record

ArticleOpen heart2025

Diagnostic accuracy in coronary CT angiography analysis: artificial intelligence versus human assessment.

Rachel Bernardo, Nick S Nurmohamed, Michiel J Bom, Ruurt Jukema, Ruben W de Winter, Ralf Sprengers, Erik S G Stroes, James K Min, James Earls, Ibrahim Danad and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. The potential of artificial intelligence in clinical trials.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Rachel BernardoDivision of Cardiology and Department of Radiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7139-6899
Nick S NurmohamedDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands n.s.nurmohamed@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9045-6009
Michiel J BomDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ruurt JukemaDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3212-2665
Ruben W de WinterDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ralf SprengersDepartment of Radiology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Erik S G StroesDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
James K MinCleerly Inc, New York, New York, USA.
James EarlsCleerly Inc, New York, New York, USA.
Ibrahim DanadDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Andrew D ChoiDivision of Cardiology and Department of Radiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Paul KnaapenDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVisual assessment of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is time-consuming, influenced by reader experience and prone to interobserver variability. This study evaluated a novel algorithm for coronary stenosis quantification (atherosclerosis imaging quantitative CT, AI-QCT).

methodsThe study included 208 patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing CCTA in Perfusion Imaging and CT Coronary Angiography With Invasive Coronary Angiography-1. AI-QCT and blinded readers assessed coronary artery stenosis following the Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System consensus. Accuracy of AI-QCT was compared with a level 3 and two level 2 clinical readers against an invasive quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) reference standard (≥50% stenosis) in an area under the curve (AUC) analysis, evaluated per-patient and per-vessel and stratified by plaque volume.

resultsAmong 208 patients with a mean age of 58±9 years and 37% women, AI-QCT demonstrated superior concordance with QCA compared with clinical CCTA assessments. For the detection of obstructive stenosis (≥50%), AI-QCT achieved an AUC of 0.91 on a per-patient level, outperforming level 3 (AUC 0.77; p<0.002) and level 2 readers (AUC 0.79; p<0.001 and AUC 0.76; p<0.001). The advantage of AI-QCT was most prominent in those with above median plaque volume. At the per-vessel level, AI-QCT achieved an AUC of 0.86, similar to level 3 (AUC 0.82; p=0.098) stenosis, but superior to level 2 readers (both AUC 0.69; p<0.001).

conclusionsAI-QCT demonstrated superior agreement with invasive QCA compared to clinical CCTA assessments, particularly compared to level 2 readers in those with extensive CAD. Integrating AI-QCT into routine clinical practice holds promise for improving the accuracy of stenosis quantification through CCTA.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceComputed Tomography AngiographyCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary StenosisCoronary VesselsRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsAtherosclerosisComputed Tomography AngiographyCORONARY ARTERY DISEASECoronary Stenosis

Identifiers

PMID39800437
PMCPMC11784206

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.