Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Accurate assessment of coronary plaque burden is essential for risk stratification in coronary artery disease (CAD). The Coronary Artery Disease – Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) 2.0 classification incorporates P-scores derived from coronary artery calcium (CAC) and segment involvement scores (SIS) to semi-quantitatively characterize plaque burden. However, limited data exist on the concordance and clinical implications of these two plaque characteristics.</p> Methods <p>We retrospectively analyzed 461 coronary CT angiography (CCTA) studies using a commercial AI-based quantitative CT (AI-QCT) plaque analysis platform (CLEERLY). CAC scores were extracted using prompt-based natural language processing, and SIS were determined by AI quantification. Unilateral P-scores for CAC (P<sub>CAC</sub>) and SIS (P<sub>SIS</sub>) were calculated according to CAD-RADS 2.0 thresholds. Agreement between P<sub>CAC</sub> and P<sub>SIS</sub> was assessed using Cohen’s kappa, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and McNemar’s test. Subgroup analyses evaluated distribution of P-score categories, sex and age in CAC = 0 patients, and the impact of symptom status using Wilcoxon rank-sum, chi-square, Fisher’s exact test, and ordinal logistic regression.</p> Results <p>The median patient age was 67 years, and 38.7% were female. CAC and SIS produced concordant P-scores in 23% of cases, with discordance in 77%. SIS determined the final P-score in 75.5% and CAC in only 1.5%. Cohen’s kappa indicated modest agreement (κ = 0.40, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01), while Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar’s tests revealed significant discordance, with SIS tending to assign higher P-score categories (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). Among patients with CAC = 0 (<i>n</i> = 97; median age 62; 65% female), 95% had non-calcified plaque by AI-QCT, and only 4 had both CAC and SIS of zero. P-score, P<sub>CAC</sub>, and P<sub>SIS</sub> distributions did not differ significantly by symptom status (all <i>p</i> &gt; 0.05), although a significant difference was detected for PSIS on chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests but not by ordinal regression or Wilcoxon rank-sum. Further analysis demonstrated that discordance was most prominent in higher P-score categories and was primarily driven by non-calcified plaque.</p> Conclusion <p>Our study demonstrates frequent discordance between CAC and SIS in CAD-RADS 2.0 plaque burden classification, particularly due to the detection of non-calcified plaque by SIS. Reliance on either CAC or SIS alone may result in risk misclassification, especially for patients with CAC = 0, the majority of whom had non-calcified plaque by AI-QCT. These findings highlight the need for standardized criteria and integration of both measures in automated plaque quantification to improve cardiovascular risk assessment, especially in discordant populations.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Using AI-Quantitative CT to evaluate the relationship between coronary artery calcium and segment involvement scores in quantifying coronary plaque burden

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月6日

查看全文
  • Najah A. Khan,
  • George Wesbey III,
  • Gavin Cobb,
  • Eric Hu,
  • Shawn Newlander,
  • Jorge Gonzalez,
  • Livia T. Silva,
  • Alexander van Rosendael,
  • Bálint Szilveszter,
  • Austin A. Robinson

摘要

Purpose

Accurate assessment of coronary plaque burden is essential for risk stratification in coronary artery disease (CAD). The Coronary Artery Disease – Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) 2.0 classification incorporates P-scores derived from coronary artery calcium (CAC) and segment involvement scores (SIS) to semi-quantitatively characterize plaque burden. However, limited data exist on the concordance and clinical implications of these two plaque characteristics.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 461 coronary CT angiography (CCTA) studies using a commercial AI-based quantitative CT (AI-QCT) plaque analysis platform (CLEERLY). CAC scores were extracted using prompt-based natural language processing, and SIS were determined by AI quantification. Unilateral P-scores for CAC (PCAC) and SIS (PSIS) were calculated according to CAD-RADS 2.0 thresholds. Agreement between PCAC and PSIS was assessed using Cohen’s kappa, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and McNemar’s test. Subgroup analyses evaluated distribution of P-score categories, sex and age in CAC = 0 patients, and the impact of symptom status using Wilcoxon rank-sum, chi-square, Fisher’s exact test, and ordinal logistic regression.

Results

The median patient age was 67 years, and 38.7% were female. CAC and SIS produced concordant P-scores in 23% of cases, with discordance in 77%. SIS determined the final P-score in 75.5% and CAC in only 1.5%. Cohen’s kappa indicated modest agreement (κ = 0.40, p < 0.01), while Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar’s tests revealed significant discordance, with SIS tending to assign higher P-score categories (p < 0.01). Among patients with CAC = 0 (n = 97; median age 62; 65% female), 95% had non-calcified plaque by AI-QCT, and only 4 had both CAC and SIS of zero. P-score, PCAC, and PSIS distributions did not differ significantly by symptom status (all p > 0.05), although a significant difference was detected for PSIS on chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests but not by ordinal regression or Wilcoxon rank-sum. Further analysis demonstrated that discordance was most prominent in higher P-score categories and was primarily driven by non-calcified plaque.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates frequent discordance between CAC and SIS in CAD-RADS 2.0 plaque burden classification, particularly due to the detection of non-calcified plaque by SIS. Reliance on either CAC or SIS alone may result in risk misclassification, especially for patients with CAC = 0, the majority of whom had non-calcified plaque by AI-QCT. These findings highlight the need for standardized criteria and integration of both measures in automated plaque quantification to improve cardiovascular risk assessment, especially in discordant populations.

Graphical Abstract