Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.
a combination of examinations of all available types (combined). Supplemental training sets contained 199-568 CT images depending on the calcium burden of each population. The DL algorithm performance was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between DL and manual (Agatston) CAC and (volume) TAC scoring and with linearly weighted κ values for cardiovascular risk categories (Agatston score; cardiovascular disease risk categories: 0, 1-10, 11-100, 101-400, >400). Results At baseline, the DL algorithm yielded ICCs of 0.79-0.97 for CAC and 0.66-0.98 for TAC across the range of different types of CT examinations. ICCs improved to 0.84-0.99 (CAC) and 0.92-0.99 (TAC) for CT protocol-specific training and to 0.85-0.99 (CAC) and 0.96-0.99 (TAC) for combined training. For assignment of cardiovascular disease risk category, the κ value for all test CT scans was 0.90 (95% confidence interval CI: 0.89, 0.91) for the baseline training. It increased to 0.92 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.93) for both data-specific and combined training. Conclusion A deep learning calcium scoring algorithm for quantification of coronary and thoracic calcium was robust, despite substantial differences in CT protocol and variations in subject population. Augmenting the algorithm training with CT protocol-specific images further improved algorithm performance. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Vannier in this issue.
Velzen et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: