ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Automated Deep Learning Segmentation and Quantification of Epicardial Adipose Tissue from Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: Validation and Clinical Implications.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) sits directly on the heart and, in excess, has been linked to coronary artery disease and adverse cardiac events. Measuring its volume on cardiac CT could help with risk assessment, but doing it by hand is slow, demands expertise, and varies from one reader to the next. We set out to build a deep learning model that automatically segments EAT from coronary CT angiography (CCTA), estimates epicardial fat volume (EFV), and assesses whether that volume predicts major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This study analyzed 286 coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) images of patients aged 40 to 90. Sixty images were used for model training, while the validation and test sets each included 20 subjects. A 3D Residual U-Net model was utilized for segmentation. The model was trained using PyTorch and MONAI, and optimized with a Dice loss. Performance was assessed using the Dice similarity coefficient and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), while the Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman plots were employed to evaluate the agreement with manual measurements. We then evaluated the association of model-derived EFV and a combinatorial radiomic phenotype with MACE over 2 years of follow-up, using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. On unseen test scans, the model accurately segmented EAT, achieving a Dice score of 0.85. Automated and manual EFV agreed closely (Spearman r = 0.932, p < 0.0001; CCC = 0.943, 95% CI 0.864-0.977). To rule out volume compensation errors, an overlapping volume CCC was calculated and remained robust at 0.819. There was only a small bias on the Bland-Altman analysis. After accounting for established cardiovascular risk factors, isolated EFV was not significantly associated with MACE; however, a high-risk radiomic phenotype, characterized by concurrent low volume and high spatial heterogeneity, emerged as a strong, independent predictor of MACE (adjusted HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.04-3.17, p = 0.035). A 3D Residual U-Net can segment epicardial fat from CCTA quickly and accurately, producing volumes that closely match expert manual measurements and cutting analysis time from minutes to seconds. While epicardial fat volume alone did not predict adverse cardiac events, a radiomic phenotype representing a small, highly heterogeneous fat depot independently predicted MACE, highlighting the prognostic importance of EAT composition over sheer volume.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42443652What 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.