Clinical validation shows deep-learning algorithm improves specificity by 18% in automated coronary analysis using photon-counting detector CT.
To evaluate a deep-learning algorithm for automated coronary artery analysis on ultrahigh-resolution photon-counting detector coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography and compared its performance to expert readers using invasive coronary angiography as reference. Thirty-two patients (mean age 68.6 years; 81 % male) underwent both energy-integrating detector and ultrahigh-resolution photon-counting detector CT within 30 days. Expert readers scored each image using the Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System classification, and compared to invasive angiography. After a three-month wash-out, one reader reanalyzed the photon-counting detector CT images assisted by the algorithm. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, inter-reader agreement, and reading times were recorded for each method. On 401 arterial segments, inter-reader agreement improved from substantial (κ = 0.75) on energy-integrating detector CT to near-perfect (κ = 0.86) on photon-counting detector CT. The algorithm alone achieved 85 % sensitivity, 91 % specificity, and 90 % accuracy on energy-integrating detector CT, and 85 %, 96 %, and 95 % on photon-counting detector CT. Compared to invasive angiography on photon-counting detector CT, manual and automated reads had similar sensitivity (67 %), but manual assessment slightly outperformed regarding specificity (85 % vs. 79 %) and accuracy (84 % vs. 78 %). When the reader was assisted by the algorithm, specificity rose to 97 % (p < 0.001), accuracy to 95 %, and reading time decreased by 54 % (p < 0.001). This deep-learning algorithm demonstrates high agreement with experts and improved diagnostic performance on photon-counting detector CT. Expert review augmented by the algorithm further increases specificity and dramatically reduces interpretation time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kravchenko et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: