0 196

Cited 4 times in

Evaluation of fully automated commercial software for Agatston calcium scoring on non-ECG-gated low-dose chest CT with different slice thickness

Authors
 Hyun Woo Kang1  ;  Woo Jin Ahn  ;  Ju Hyun Jeong  ;  Young Joo Suh  ;  Dong Hyun Yang  ;  Hangseok Choi  ;  Sung Ho Hwang  ;  Hwan Seok Yong  ;  Yu-Whan Oh  ;  Eun-Young Kang  ;  Cherry Kim 
Citation
 EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, Vol.33(3) : 1973-1981, 2023-03 
Journal Title
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
ISSN
 0938-7994 
Issue Date
2023-03
MeSH
Calcium* ; Coronary Angiography / methods ; Coronary Artery Disease* / diagnosis ; Coronary Vessels ; Humans ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; Software ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed / methods
Keywords
Artificial intelligence ; Calcium ; Coronary arteries ; Software ; Tomography, X-ray computed
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate commercial deep learning-based software for fully automated coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring on non-electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated low-dose CT (LDCT) with different slice thicknesses compared with manual ECG-gated calcium-scoring CT (CSCT). Methods This retrospective study included 567 patients who underwent both LDCT and CSCT. All LDCT images were reconstructed with a 2.5-mm slice thickness (LDCT2.5-mm), and 453 LDCT scans were reconstructed with a 1.0-mm slice thickness (LDCT1.0-mm). Automated CAC scoring was performed on CSCT (CSCTauto), LDCT1.0-mm, and LDCT2.5-mm images. The reliability of CSCTauto, LDCT1.0-mm, and LDCT2.5-mm was compared with manual CSCT scoring (CSCTmanual) using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis. Agreement, in CAC severity category, was analyzed using weighted kappa statistics. Diagnostic performance at various Agatston score cutoffs was also calculated. Results CSCTauto, LDCT1.0-mm, and LDCT2.5-mm demonstrated excellent agreement with CSCTmanual (ICC [95% confidence interval, CI]: 1.000 [1.000, 1.000], 0.937 [0.917, 0.952], and 0.955 [0.946, 0.963], respectively). The mean difference with 95% limits of agreement was lower with LDCT1.0-mm than with LDCT2.5-mm (19.94 [95% CI, -244.0, 283.9] vs. 45.26 [-248.2, 338.7]). Regarding CAC severity, LDCT1.0-mm achieved almost perfect agreement, and LDCT2.5-mm achieved substantial agreement (kappa [95% CI]: 0.809 [0.776, 0.838], 0.776 [0.740, 0.809], respectively). Diagnostic performance for detecting Agatston score >= 400 was also higher with LDCT1.0-mm than with LDCT2.5-mm (F1 score, 0.929 vs. 0.855). Conclusions Fully automated CAC-scoring software with both CSCT and LDCT yielded excellent reliability and agreement with CSCTmanual. LDCT1.0-mm yielded more accurate Agatston scoring than LDCT2.5-mm using fully automated commercial software.
Full Text
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00330-022-09143-1
DOI
10.1007/s00330-022-09143-1
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiology (영상의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Suh, Young Joo(서영주) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2078-5832
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/194239
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse

Links