Real-world approach to comprehensive artificial intelligence-aided CT evaluation of coronary artery disease in 530 patients: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Recent guidelines provide broader support for the use of less invasive imaging modalities for the evaluation of patients with stable chest pain. Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) uses increasingly sophisticated techniques to improve evaluation of coronary lesions. The purpose of this study is to describe one center's experience implementing AI-assisted advanced imaging techniques to diagnose coronary artery disease. Materials & methods: Retrospective study of patients who had AI-assisted CCTA interpretation, including a subgroup who underwent fractional flow reserve CT (FFR-CT) and invasive coronary angiography. Descriptive statistics summarized baseline characteristics and univariate statistics compared findings between groups of patients with and without anatomically and hemodynamically significant lesions based on FFR-CT. For patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography, concordance between CCTA and angiography was evaluated. Results: Of 532 included patients, AI-assisted CCTA identified statistically significant difference in calcification scores, plaque types and total plaque volume between lesions <50% and ≥50% stenosis. CCTA results were mostly concordant with invasive coronary angiography. Importantly, we identified a subset of patients with less than 50% anatomical stenosis that demonstrated physiologically significant stenosis on FFR-CT and invasive coronary angiography. Conclusions: AI-assisted CCTA and other advanced techniques are a tool to support high quality diagnostic assessment of coronary lesions in a clinical environment. Combined CCTA with FFRCT in mild to moderate coronary stenosis identifies patients with hemodynamically significant stenosis even when quantitative stenosis is <50%. Implementation of AI-assisted coronary CT angiography is feasible in a community hospital setting, but these technologies do not replace the need for expert review and clinical correlation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".