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.
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.