Key result
Agreement between manual and automated segmentation of carotid artery plaque components was poor for lipid-rich necrotic cores (k=0.04) and fair for calcifications (k=0.41), though agreement increased to moderate in high-quality scans.
Why the study?
Does automated carotid artery plaque component segmentation agree with manual segmentation and provide reproducible results in patients with 30-70% carotid artery stenosis?
Observational (n=24)
No
Does automated carotid artery plaque component segmentation agree with manual segmentation and provide reproducible results in patients with 30-70% carotid artery stenosis?
Automated segmentation of carotid plaque components on 3T MRI shows poor agreement with manual segmentation overall, though agreement improves to moderate levels in high-quality scans, highlighting that image quality is a critical determinant for both methods.
Automated carotid plaque segmentation warrants caution in clinical use; leaves open prospective validation of refined algorithms in high-quality scans.
To study the interscan reproducibility of manual versus automated segmentation of carotid artery plaque components, and the agreement between both methods, in high and lower quality MRI scans.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smits et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Carotid artery stenosis (n=24). Automated carotid artery plaque component segmentation vs. Manual segmentation was evaluated on Agreement for the detection of lipid-rich necrotic cores (LRNC) and calcification (Cohen's kappa 0.04 for LRNC and 0.41 for calcification). Agreement between manual and automated segmentation of carotid artery plaque components was poor for lipid-rich necrotic cores (k=0.04) and fair for calcifications (k=0.41), though agreement increased to moderate in high-quality scans.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: