Demonstrates improved SPECT MPI classification in coronary artery disease, indicating the value of stress-phase imaging.
Background/Objectives: Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is widely used for non-invasive assessment of coronary artery disease under stress and rest conditions. Although deep learning has shown promise for automated SPECT MPI interpretation, most studies focus on single-tracer datasets and do not explicitly account for tracer-dependent variability. This study developed and evaluated a multi-task deep learning framework with tracer-specific prediction heads for patient-level SPECT MPI classification. Methods: A convolutional neural network with a shared feature encoder and tracer-specific heads was implemented using polar map representations from technetium-99m (Tc-99m) and thallium-201 (Tl-201) studies. Transfer learning from ImageNet was applied. Stress-only, rest-only, and dual-input configurations were evaluated using repeated patient-stratified cross-validation and independent testing. Performance was assessed using ROC-AUC and balanced accuracy. Results: For Tc-99m normal versus abnormal perfusion classification, the stress-only model achieved the highest cross-validation AUC (0.88 ± 0.067) and test AUC of 0.88 [0.67–0.99]. For Tl-201 low-risk versus intermediate/high-risk classification, stress-based models achieved the highest cross-validation AUC (0.88 ± 0.051) and test AUC of 0.80 [0.71–0.89], comparable to dual-input models. In both tracer-specific tasks, stress-phase information showed favorable performance, but the endpoints differed and should be interpreted separately. Conclusions: Stress-phase polar maps provided strong discriminative information within this single-center cohort. These findings should be interpreted in a tracer- and task-specific manner supporting stress-phase imaging as an informative input for AI-based SPECT MPI classification while underscoring the need for external validation before broader clinical generalization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Samaras et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: