Artificial Intelligence–based Coronary Stenosis Quantification at Coronary CT Angiography versus Quantitative Coronary Angiography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the performance of a new artificial intelligence (AI)–based tool by comparing the quantified stenosis severity at coronary CT angiography (CCTA) with a reference standard derived from invasive quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). Materials and Methods This secondary, post hoc analysis included 120 participants (mean age, 59.7 years ± 10.8 [SD]; 73 [60.8%] men, 47 [39.2%] women) from three large clinical trials (AFFECTS, P3, REFINE) who underwent CCTA and invasive coronary angiography with QCA. Quantitative analysis of coronary stenosis severity at CCTA was performed using an AI-based coronary stenosis quantification (AI-CSQ) software service. Blinded comparison between QCA and AI-CSQ was measured on a per-vessel and per-patient basis. Results The per-vessel AI-CSQ diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 80%, 88%, 86%, 65%, and 94%, respectively, for diameter stenosis (DS) 50% or greater; and 78%, 92%, 91%, 47%, and 98%, respectively, for DS 70% or greater. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) to predict DS of 50% or greater and 70% or greater on a per-vessel basis were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.95; P < .001) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.97; P < .001), respectively. The AUCs to predict DS of 50% or greater and 70% or greater on a per-patient basis were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.97; P < .001) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.94; P < .001), respectively. Conclusion AI-CSQ at CCTA demonstrated a high diagnostic performance compared with QCA both on a per-patient and per-vessel basis, with high sensitivity for stenosis detection. Keywords: CT Angiography, Cardiac, Coronary Arteries Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it