Assessing the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic utility of artificial intelligence detection and grading of coronary artery calcification on nongated computed tomography (CT) thorax.

Authors

Shear B,Graby J,Murphy D,Strong K,Khavandi A,Burnett TA,Charters PFP,Rodrigues JCL

Affiliations (5)

  • University of Bristol, Beacon House, Queens Rd, Bristol BS8 1QU, UK.
  • Department of Cardiology, Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath, BA1 3NG, UK; Department for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
  • Department of Cardiology, Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath, BA1 3NG, UK.
  • Department of Radiology, Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath, Avon, BA1 3NG, UK.
  • Department for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK; Department of Radiology, Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath, Avon, BA1 3NG, UK. Electronic address: [email protected].

Abstract

This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic implications of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool for coronary artery calcification (CAC) assessment on nongated, noncontrast thoracic computed tomography (CT). A single-centre retrospective analysis of 75 consecutive patients per age group (<40, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years) undergoing non-gated, non-contrast CT (January-December 2015) was conducted. AI analysis reported CAC presence and generated an Agatston score, and the performance was compared with baseline CT reports and a dedicated radiologist re-review. Interobserver variability between AI and radiologist assessments was measured using Cohen's κ. All-cause mortality was recorded, and its association with AI-detected CAC was tested. A total of 291 patients (mean age: 64 ± 19, 51% female) were included, with 80% (234/291) of AI reports passing radiologist quality assessment. CAC was reported on 7% (17/234) of initial clinical reports, 58% (135/234) on radiologist re-review, and 57% (134/234) by AI analysis. After manual quality assurance (QA) assessment, the AI tool demonstrated high sensitivity (96%), specificity (96%), positive predictive value (95%), and negative predictive value (97%) for CAC detection compared with radiologist re-review. Interobserver agreement was strong for CAC prevalence (κ = 0.92) and moderate for severity grading (κ = 0.60). AI-detected CAC presence and severity predicted all-cause mortality (p < 0.001). The AI tool exhibited feasible analysis potential for non-contrast, non-gated thoracic CTs, offering prognostic insights if integrated into routine practice. Nonetheless, manual quality assessment remains essential. This AI tool represents a potential enhancement to CAC detection and reporting on routine noncardiac chest CT.

Topics

Artificial IntelligenceCoronary Artery DiseaseVascular CalcificationTomography, X-Ray ComputedRadiography, ThoracicJournal Article

Ready to Sharpen Your Edge?

Join hundreds of your peers who rely on RadAI Slice. Get the essential weekly briefing that empowers you to navigate the future of radiology.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.