Impact of Deep Learning-Based Image Conversion on Fully Automated Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring Using Thin-Slice, Sharp-Kernel, Non-Gated, Low-Dose Chest CT Scans: A Multi-Center Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the impact of deep learning-based image conversion on the accuracy of automated coronary artery calcium quantification using thin-slice, sharp-kernel, non-gated, low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) images collected from multiple institutions. Materials and Methods:A total of 225 pairs of LDCT and calcium scoring CT (CSCT) images scanned at 120 kVp and acquired from the same patient within a 6-month interval were retrospectively collected from four institutions.Image conversion was performed for LDCT images using proprietary software programs to simulate conventional CSCT.This process included 1) deep learning-based kernel conversion of low-dose, high-frequency, sharp kernels to simulate standard-dose, low-frequency kernels, and 2) thickness conversion using the raysum method to convert 1-mm or 1.25-mm thickness images to 3-mm thickness.Automated Agaston scoring was conducted on the LDCT scans before (LDCT-Orgauto) and after the image conversion (LDCT-CONVauto).Manual scoring was performed on the CSCT images (CSCTmanual) and used as a reference standard.The accuracy of automated Agaston scores and risk severity categorization based on the automated scoring on LDCT scans was analyzed compared to the reference standard, using the Bland-Altman analysis, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and weighted kappa (κ) statistic.Results: LDCT-CONVauto demonstrated a reduced bias for Agaston score, compared with CSCTmanual, than LDCT-Orgauto did (-3.45 vs. 206.7).LDCT-CONVauto showed a higher CCC than LDCT-Orgauto did (0.881 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.750-0.960]vs. 0.269 [95% CI, 0.129-0.430]).In terms of risk category assignment, LDCT-Orgauto exhibited poor agreement with CSCTmanual
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".