MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407765589 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.124.268079

Artificial Intelligence–Enhanced Perfusion Scoring Improves the Diagnostic Accuracy of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

2025· article· en· W4407765589 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J.H. Miller, Paul Kavanagh, Mark A. Lemley, Joanna X. Liang, Tali Sharir, Andrew J. Einstein, Mathews B. Fish, Terrence D. Ruddy, Philipp A. Kaufmann, Albert J. Sinusas, Edward J. Miller, Timothy M. Bateman, Sharmila Dorbala, Marcelo F. Di Carli, Sean Hayes, John D. Friedman, Daniel S. Berman, Damini Dey, Piotr J. Slomka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)University of Calgary
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsPerfusionPerfusion scanningMyocardial perfusion imagingMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyComputer scienceNuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We previously demonstrated that a deep learning (DL) model of myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging improved accuracy for detection of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to improve the clinical translatability of this artificial intelligence (AI) approach using the results to derive enhanced total perfusion deficit (TPD) and 17-segment summed scores. Methods: We used a cohort of patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging within 180 d of invasive coronary angiography. Obstructive CAD was defined as any stenosis of at least 70% or at least 50% in the left main coronary artery. We used per-vessel DL predictions to modulate polar map pixel scores. These transformed polar maps were then used to derive TPD-DL and summed stress score–DL. We compared diagnostic performance using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: In the 555 patients held out for testing, the median age was 65 y (interquartile range, 57–73 y), and 381 (69%) were male. Obstructive CAD was present in 329 (59%) patients. The prediction performance for obstructive CAD of stress TPD-DL (AUC, 0.837; 95% CI, 0.804–0.870) was higher than AI prediction alone (AUC, 0.795; 95% CI, 0.758–0.831; P = 0.005) and traditional stress TPD (AUC, 0.737; 95% CI, 0.696–0.778; P < 0.001). Summed stress score–DL had the second highest prediction performance (AUC, 0.822; 95% CI, 0.788–0.857) and higher AUC than traditional quantitative summed stress score (AUC, 0.728; 95% CI, 0.686–0.769; P < 0.001). At a threshold of 5%, the sensitivity and specificity of TPD rose from 72% to 79% and from 62% to 70%, respectively. Conclusion: Integrating AI predictions with traditional quantitative approaches leads to a simplified AI approach, presenting clinicians with familiar measures but operating with higher accuracy than traditional quantitative scoring. This approach may facilitate integration of new AI methods into clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207