AI-Derived Left Ventricular Mass From Noncontrast Cardiac CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Noncontrast computed tomography (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 (CMR). Objectives: The purpose of the study was to assess the feasibility of LV mass estimation from standard, ECG-gated, noncontrast CT using an artificial intelligence (AI) approach and compare it with coronary CT angiography (CTA) and CMR. Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients who underwent coronary CTA, which included noncontrast CT calcium scanning and contrast CTA, and CMR. The median interval between coronary CTA and CMR was 22 days (interquartile range: 3-76). We utilized a no new UNet AI model that automatically segmented noncontrast CT structures. AI measurement of LV mass was compared to contrast CTA and CMR. Results: < 0.001), with a small bias (-9.4). There were no statistical differences between the correlations of LV mass between contrast CTA and CMR or AI and CMR. Conclusions: The AI-based automated estimation of LV mass from noncontrast CT demonstrated excellent correlations and minimal biases when compared to contrast CTA and CMR.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".