Artificial intelligence-based automated left ventricular mass quantification from non-contrast cardiac CT scans: correlation with contrast CT and cardiac MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Non-contrast CT scans are not used for evaluating left ventricle myocardial mass (LV mass), which is typically evaluated with contrast CT or cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We assessed the feasibility of LV mass estimation from standard, ECG-gated, non-contrast CT using an artificial intelligence (AI) approach and compare it with coronary CT angiography (CTA) and cardiac MRI. Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients who underwent coronary CTA, which included non-contrast CT calcium scanning and contrast CTA, and cardiac MRI. The median interval between coronary CTA and MRI was 22 days (IQR: 3-76). We utilized an nn-Unet AI model that automatically segmented non-contrast CT structures. AI measurement of LV mass was compared to contrast CTA and MRI. Results: A total of 316 patients (Age: 57.1±16.7, 56% male) were included. The AI segmentation took on average 22 seconds per case. An excellent correlation was observed between AI and contrast CTA LV mass measures (r=0.84, p<0.001), with no significant differences (136.5±55.3 vs. 139.6±56.9 g, p=0.133). Bland-Altman analysis showed minimal bias of 2.9. When compared to MRI, measured LV mass was higher with AI (136.5±55.3 vs. 127.1±53.1 g, p<0.001). There was an excellent correlation between AI and MRI (r=0.85, p<0.001), with a small bias (-9.4). There were no statistical differences between the correlations of LV mass between contrast CTA and MRI, or AI and MRI. Conclusions: The AI-based automated estimation of LV mass from non-contrast CT demonstrated excellent correlations and minimal biases when compared to contrast CTA and MRI.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".