Back

AI-Based Coronary Artery Calcification on Non-contrast CT: Performance Across Calcium Scoring, Lung Cancer Screening, and Liver Transplant Candidate Cohorts

Ludwig, K. D.; Hatt, C. R.; Keith, L.; Matyga, A. W.; Te, H. S.; Landeras, L.; Chelala, L.; Patel, A. R.; Chung, J. H.

2026-05-15 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.05.12.26352904 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: Coronary artery calcification (CAC) assessment for cardiovascular risk stratification is traditionally achieved using ECG-gated computed tomography (CT). Automated deep-learning (DL) algorithms may streamline opportunistic CAC detection and scoring, particularly on non-gated CT scans. This study evaluated the performance of a fully automated DL-based CAC scoring algorithm ("DL-CAC") against expert human scoring. Methods: The algorithm was trained on 1,260 chest CT scans from multiple databases to automatically identify coronary calcium, calculate Agatston scores, and assign a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk classification. Performance was assessed on a holdout dataset (n=500) comprising ECG-gated calcium scoring CT scans and lung cancer screening non-gated chest CTs as well as in an external, independent CT dataset (n=129) from liver transplant candidates. Agreement with expert scoring was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for Agatston scores and Cohen's {kappa} for CVD risk classification. Results: The algorithm demonstrated high agreement with expert scoring in the pooled calcium scoring and lung cancer screening cohorts, with an ICC of 0.947 for Agatston scores and {kappa} of 0.936 for CVD risk classification. For liver transplant candidates, the algorithm exhibited substantial agreement with expert scoring of non-gated CT scans ({kappa}=0.79) and a sensitivity of 90.4% and specificity of 96.4% in high-risk cases. Conclusion: These findings suggest that DL-based CAC scoring on non-gated CT scans may be a feasible alternative to traditional methods and could support opportunistic cardiovascular risk assessment in routine imaging. Further validation is warranted to assess clinical integration in broader practice settings.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.1%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.4%
3
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.7%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 24%
7.0%
5
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
6
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.1%
7
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
8
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
9
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
10
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
11
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
12
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
Photoacoustics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
14
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
15
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.7%
16
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
17
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.4%
18
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
19
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
20
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
21
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.3%
22
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
23
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
24
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
25
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
26
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.8%
27
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
28
Frontiers in Endocrinology
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
29
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
30
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%