Deep Learning Coronary Artery Calcium Scores from SPECT/CT Attenuation Maps Improve Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiac Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-dose ungated CT attenuation correction (CTAC) scans are commonly obtained with SPECT/CT myocardial perfusion imaging. Despite the characteristically low image quality of CTAC, deep learning (DL) can potentially quantify coronary artery calcium (CAC) from these scans in an automatic manner. We evaluated CAC quantification derived with a DL model, including correlation with expert annotations and associations with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). <b>Methods:</b> We trained a convolutional long short-term memory DL model to automatically quantify CAC on CTAC scans using 6,608 studies (2 centers) and evaluated the model in an external cohort of patients without known coronary artery disease (<i>n</i> = 2,271) obtained in a separate center. We assessed agreement between DL and expert annotated CAC scores. We also assessed associations between MACE (death, revascularization, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina) and CAC categories (0, 1–100, 101–400, or >400) for scores manually derived by experienced readers and scores obtained fully automatically by DL using multivariable Cox models (adjusted for age, sex, past medical history, perfusion, and ejection fraction) and net reclassification index. <b>Results:</b> In the external testing population, DL CAC was 0 in 908 patients (40.0%), 1–100 in 596 (26.2%), 100–400 in 354 (15.6%), and >400 in 413 (18.2%). Agreement in CAC category by DL CAC and expert annotation was excellent (linear weighted κ, 0.80), but DL CAC was obtained automatically in less than 2 s compared with about 2.5 min for expert CAC. DL CAC category was an independent risk factor for MACE with hazard ratios in comparison to a CAC of zero: CAC of 1–100 (2.20; 95% CI, 1.54–3.14; <i>P</i> < 0.001), CAC of 101–400 (4.58; 95% CI, 3.23–6.48; <i>P</i> < 0.001), and CAC of more than 400 (5.92; 95% CI, 4.27–8.22; <i>P</i> < 0.001). Overall, the net reclassification index was 0.494 for DL CAC, which was similar to expert annotated CAC (0.503). <b>Conclusion:</b> DL CAC from SPECT/CT attenuation maps agrees well with expert CAC annotations and provides a similar risk stratification but can be obtained automatically. DL CAC scores improved classification of a significant proportion of patients as compared with SPECT myocardial perfusion alone.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".