Chamberlin Jordan H, Abrol Sameer, Munford James, O'Doherty Jim, Baruah Dhiraj, Schoepf U Joseph, Burt Jeremy R, Kabakus Ismail M
Division of Cardiothoracic Radiology, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Clinical Science Building, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, Suite 210, MSC 323, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, PA, USA.
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2025 Feb;41(2):269-278. doi: 10.1007/s10554-024-03306-5. Epub 2024 Dec 16.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been proposed to improve workflow for coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS), but simultaneous demonstration of improved efficiency, accuracy, and clinical stability have not been demonstrated. 148 sequential patients who underwent routine calcium-scoring computed tomography were retrospectively evaluated using a previously validated AI model (syngo. CT CaScoring VB60, Siemens Healthineers, Forscheim, Germany). CACS was performed by manual (Expert alone), semi-automatic (AI + expert review), and automatic (AI alone) methods. Time to complete and intraclass correlation coefficients were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included differences in multiethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA) percentiles and stratification by calcium severity. AI and expert CACS agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.951; 95% CI 0.933-0.964). The global median time was 15 ± 2 s for AI ("Automatic"), 38 ± 13 s for the AI + manual review ("Semiautomatic") and 45 ± 24 s for the manual segmentation. Automatic segmentation was faster than manual segmentation for all CACS severities (P < 0.001). AI computational time was independent of calcium burden. Global mean bias in Agatston score across all patients was 7.4 ± 102.6. The mean bias for global MESA score percentile was 2.1% ± 12%. 95% of error corresponded to a ± 10% difference in MESA score. The use of AI for CACS performs excellent accuracy, saves approximately 60% of time in comparison to manual review, and demonstrates low bias for clinical risk profiles. Time benefits are magnified for patients with high CACS. However, a semi-automatic approach is still recommended to minimize potential errors while maintaining efficiency.
人工智能(AI)已被提议用于改善冠状动脉钙化评分(CACS)的工作流程,但尚未同时证明其能提高效率、准确性和临床稳定性。对148例接受常规钙化评分计算机断层扫描的连续患者,使用先前验证的人工智能模型(syngo.CT CaScoring VB60,西门子医疗,德国福希海姆)进行回顾性评估。CACS通过手动(仅专家)、半自动(AI + 专家审核)和自动(仅AI)方法进行。完成时间和组内相关系数是主要终点。次要终点包括动脉粥样硬化多民族研究(MESA)百分位数的差异以及按钙化严重程度分层。AI与专家CACS的一致性极佳(ICC = 0.951;95% CI 0.933 - 0.964)。AI(“自动”)的全局中位时间为15 ± 2秒,AI + 手动审核(“半自动”)为38 ± 13秒,手动分割为45 ± 24秒。对于所有CACS严重程度,自动分割均比手动分割更快(P < 0.001)。AI计算时间与钙负荷无关。所有患者的阿加斯顿评分的全局平均偏差为7.4 ± 102.6。全局MESA评分百分位数的平均偏差为2.1% ± 12%。95%的误差对应于MESA评分中±10%的差异。将AI用于CACS具有极高的准确性,与手动审核相比节省约60%的时间,并且在临床风险概况方面显示出低偏差。对于CACS高的患者,时间效益会放大。然而,仍建议采用半自动方法以在保持效率的同时尽量减少潜在误差。