ArticleOpen heart2025
Diagnostic accuracy in coronary CT angiography analysis: artificial intelligence versus human assessment.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-based coronary computed tomography angiography quantification of atherosclerosis burden: comparison with intravascular ultrasound in the INVICTUS Registry.European radiology · 2026Article
- Coronary Computed Tomography and Artificial Intelligence-based Plaque Analysis.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2026Review
- Quantitative Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque Burden From CCTA and the Benefit From Lipid-Lowering Medication.Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging · 2026Observational
- The time-varying prognostic value of stenosis and plaque burden in coronary artery disease.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2026Article
- Innovations In Artificial Intelligence-Guided Atherosclerosis Cardiovascular Imaging: From Detection to Prognosis.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2026Review
- The potential of artificial intelligence in clinical trials.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- Precision medicine and personalized nursing in cardiovascular disease: clinical applications and frontier developments.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Cardiac CT for personalized phenotyping in stable coronary artery disease: toward precision medicine.BJR open · 2026Review
- Development of a MACE risk prediction model based on CCTA-derived quantitative parameters: a proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Prognostic implications of quantified coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial perfusion in diabetes.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2025Observational
- Critical appraisal on "automatic measuring of coronary atherosclerosis from medicolegal autopsy photographs based on deep learning techniques".Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2025Article
- Lipomatous Hypertrophy of the Interatrial Septum (LHIS) a Biomarker for Cardiovascular Protection? A Hypothesis Generating Case-Control Study.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy in coronary CT angiography analysis: artificial intelligence versus human assessment.Open heart · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Imaging: Current Landscape, Clinical Impact, and Future Directions.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.