Evaluation of an artificial intelligence coronary artery calcium scoring model from computed tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores derived from computed tomography (CT) scans are used for cardiovascular risk stratification. Artificial intelligence (AI) can assist in CAC quantification and potentially reduce the time required for human analysis. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a fully automated model that identifies and quantifies CAC. METHODS: Fully convolutional neural networks for automated CAC scoring were developed and trained on 2439 cardiac CT scans and validated using 771 scans. The model was tested on an independent set of 1849 cardiac CT scans. Agatston CAC scores were further categorised into five risk categories (0, 1-10, 11-100, 101-400, and > 400). Automated scores were compared to the manual reference standard (level 3 expert readers). RESULTS: Of 1849 scans used for model testing (mean age 55.7 ± 10.5 years, 49% males), the automated model detected the presence of CAC in 867 (47%) scans compared with 815 (44%) by human readers (p = 0.09). CAC scores from the model correlated very strongly with the manual score (Spearman's r = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-0.91, p < 0.001 and intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.98, 95% CI 0.98-0.99, p < 0.001). The model classified 1646 (89%) into the same risk category as human observers. The Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated little difference (1.69, 95% limits of agreement: -41.22, 44.60) and there was almost excellent agreement (Cohen's κ = 0.90, 95% CI 0.88-0.91, p < 0.001). Model analysis time was 13.1 ± 3.2 s/scan. CONCLUSIONS: This artificial intelligence-based fully automated CAC scoring model shows high accuracy and low analysis times. Its potential to optimise clinical workflow efficiency and patient outcomes requires evaluation. KEY POINTS: • Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores are traditionally assessed using cardiac computed tomography and require manual input by human operators to identify calcified lesions. • A novel artificial intelligence (AI)-based model for fully automated CAC scoring was developed and tested on an independent dataset of computed tomography scans, showing very high levels of correlation and agreement with manual measurements as a reference standard. • AI has the potential to assist in the identification and quantification of CAC, thereby reducing the time required for human analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".