Back

CarotidMamba: Foundation Model-Enabled CTA Phenotyping of Symptomatic Carotid Plaques in a Multi-Center Retrospective Study

Liu, Y.-S.; Dou, X.-W.; Zheng, P.-Y.; Feng, W.; Ma, L.-J.; You, Y.-N.; Shao, G.-W.; Shen, J.-G.; Yu, X.; Qiao, C.; Cheng, Z.-W.; Li, Z.-W.; Su, F.; Zhang, B.-W.; Qu, X.-H.; Jiang, g.

2026-06-05 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.06.02.26354776 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Treatment decisions for carotid atherosclerotic disease rely primarily on luminal stenosis, although plaque vulnerability and symptomatic status better reflect short-term cerebrovascular risk. A scalable CTA tool for automated phenotyping of symptomatic carotid disease is lacking. Materials & Methods: In this multi-institutional retrospective study, 689 patients (mean age, 67.9 {+/-} 7.7 years; 366 men) from four hospitals were analyzed after screening 705 CTA examinations. 423 patients from one center were used for five-fold development and internal validation, and 266 patients from three centers for independent external validation. CarotidMamba, a deep learning framework combining dual foundation-model encoders with Mamba-based sequence modeling, was developed and benchmarked against clinical, radiomics, clinic-radiomics, CNN, and transformer comparators. Results: In the development cohort, CarotidMamba achieved an AUC of 0.839 (95% CI, 0.799-0.879) and accuracy of 0.825 (95% CI, 0.793-0.857), outperforming the strongest comparator by 0.066 and 0.050, respectively. External validation yielded AUCs of 0.897 (95% CI, 0.835-0.959) in YCH, 0.809 (95% CI, 0.720-0.898) in DCH, and 0.762 (95% CI, 0.649-0.875) in GH-NTC. CarotidMamba showed the lowest Brier score and expected calibration error across cohorts, with calibration slopes near 1.0. Conclusion: CarotidMamba provides an interpretable, clinically oriented, and externally validated CTA framework for phenotyping symptomatic carotid plaques, supporting vulnerability-aware imaging assessment beyond stenosis alone.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.