Vessel-specific reliability of artificial intelligence-based coronary artery calcium scoring on non-ECG-gated chest CT: a comparative study with ECG-gated cardiac CT.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the performance of artificial intelligence (AI)-based coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS) on non-electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated chest CT, using manual quantification as the reference standard, while characterizing per-vessel reliability and clinical risk classification impacts.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 290 patients (June 2023-2024) with paired non-ECG-gated chest CT and ECG-gated cardiac CT (median time was 2 days). AI-based CACS and manual CACS (CACS_man) were compared using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and weighted Cohen's kappa (3,1). Error types, anatomical distributions, and CACS of the lesions of individual arteries or segments were assessed in accordance with the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT) guidelines.

RESULTS

The total CACS of chest CT demonstrated excellent concordance with CACS_man (ICC = 0.87, 95 % CI 0.84-0.90). Non-ECG-gated chest showed a 7.5-fold increased risk misclassification rate compared to ECG-gated cardiac CT (41.4 % vs. 5.5 %), with 35.5 % overclassification and 5.9 % underclassification. Vessel-specific analysis revealed paradoxical reliability of the left anterior descending artery (LAD) due to stent misclassification in four cases (ICC = 0.93 on chest CT vs 0.82 on cardiac CT), while the right coronary artery (RCA) demonstrated suboptimal performance with ICCs ranging from 0.60 to 0.68. Chest CT exhibited higher false-positive (1.9 % vs 0.5 %) and false-negative rates (14.4 % vs 4.3 %). False positive mainly derived from image noise in proximal LAD/RCA (median CACS 5.97 vs 3.45) and anatomical error, while false negatives involved RCA microcalcifications (median CACS 2.64).

CONCLUSIONS

AI-based non-ECG-gated chest CT demonstrates utility for opportunistic screening but requires protocol optimization to address vessel-specific limitations and mitigate 41.4 % risk misclassification rates.