Department of Radiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No.74 Linjiang Rd, Yuzhong District, 400010 Chongqing, China.
ShuKun (BeiJing) Technology Co., Ltd., Jinhui Bd, Qiyang Rd, 100000 Beijing, China.
Eur J Radiol. 2021 Dec;145:110034. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.110034. Epub 2021 Nov 16.
To evaluate the risk category performance of artificial intelligence-based coronary artery calcium score (AI-CACS) software used in non-gated chest computed tomography (CT) on three types of CT machines, considering the manual method as the standard.
A total of 901 patients who underwent both chest CT and electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated non-contrast-enhanced cardiac CT with the same equipment within a 3-month period were enrolled in the study. AI-CACS software was based on a deep learning algorithm and was trained on multi-vendor, multi-scanner, and multi-hospital anonymized data from the chest CT database. The AI-CACS was automatically obtained from chest CT data by the AI-CACS software, while the manual CACS was obtained from cardiac CT data by the manual method. The correlation of the AI-CACS and manual CACS, concordance rate and kappa value of the risk categories determined by the two methods were calculated. The chi-square test was used to evaluate the differences in risk categories among the three types of CT machines from different manufacturers. The risk category performance of the AI-CACS for dichotomous risk categories bounded by 0, 100 and 400 was assessed.
The correlation of the AI-CACS with the manual CACS was ρ = 0.893 (p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman plot (AI-CACS minus manual CACS) showed a mean difference of -27.2 and 95% limits of agreement of -290.0 to 235.6. The agreement of risk categories for the CACS was kappa (κ) = 0.679 (p < 0.001), and the concordance rate was 80.6%. The risk categories determined by the AI-CACS software on three types of CT machines were not significantly different (p = 0.7543). As dichotomous risk categories bounded by 0, 100 and 400, the accuracy, kappa value, and area under the curve of the AI-CACS were 88.6% vs. 92.9% vs. 97.9%, 0.77 vs. 0.77 vs. 0.83, and 0.885 vs. 0.964 vs. 0.981, respectively.
There was good correlation and agreement between the AI-CACS and manual CACS in terms of the risk category. It is feasible to obtain the CACS using AI software based on non-gated chest CT data in a short time without increasing the radiation dose or economic burden. The AI-CACS software algorithm has good clinical universality and can be applied to CT machines from different manufacturers.
评估基于人工智能的冠状动脉钙评分(AI-CACS)软件在三种 CT 机上的非门控胸部 CT 中的风险类别性能,以手动方法为标准。
共纳入 901 例在 3 个月内同时接受胸部 CT 和心电门控非增强心脏 CT 的患者。AI-CACS 软件基于深度学习算法,基于多供应商、多扫描仪和多医院匿名胸部 CT 数据库的数据进行训练。AI-CACS 软件自动从胸部 CT 数据中获得 AI-CACS,而手动 CACS 则通过手动方法从心脏 CT 数据中获得。计算 AI-CACS 与手动 CACS 的相关性、两种方法确定的风险类别一致性率和kappa 值。卡方检验用于评估来自不同制造商的三种类型 CT 机的风险类别差异。评估了以 0、100 和 400 为界的 AI-CACS 对二分类风险类别的性能。
AI-CACS 与手动 CACS 的相关性为 ρ=0.893(p<0.001)。Bland-Altman 图(AI-CACS 减去手动 CACS)显示平均差值为-27.2,95%一致性界限为-290.0 至 235.6。CACS 风险类别的一致性为 kappa(κ)=0.679(p<0.001),一致性率为 80.6%。三种 CT 机上的 AI-CACS 软件确定的风险类别无显著差异(p=0.7543)。作为以 0、100 和 400 为界的二分类风险类别,AI-CACS 的准确性、kappa 值和曲线下面积分别为 88.6%、0.77、0.885,92.9%、0.77、0.964 和 97.9%、0.83、0.981。
在风险类别方面,AI-CACS 与手动 CACS 之间具有良好的相关性和一致性。在不增加辐射剂量或经济负担的情况下,使用基于非门控胸部 CT 数据的人工智能软件快速获得 CACS 是可行的。AI-CACS 软件算法具有良好的临床通用性,可应用于来自不同制造商的 CT 机。