BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a new artificial intelligence model, the compact unified model (CU-Model), for moderate-to-severe carotid artery stenosis using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) images compared to clinical reference standards. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study, 156 patients with confirmed moderate-to-severe carotid artery stenosis were included. A pretrained CU-Model (trained on public non-clinical datasets for optical flow and stereo matching) was applied to raw DSA images without any fine-tuning on clinical data to avoid data leakage. The model served exclusively as a post-acquisition support tool: cardiologists applied it immediately after procedures for automated vessel segmentation and highlighting. Final North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) measurements and interpreta-tions were performed manually under expert supervision by 2 blinded researchers. RESULTS: The CU-Model identified left internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis in 84 patients and right ICA stenosis in 72. It misclassified only 1 moderate left ICA stenosis case as normal, achieving 99.4% sensitivity (155/156) for any stenosis detection. For stenosis severity grading, strong agreement with DSA was observed (moderate: 57.68 ± 5.94 vs. 57.71 ± 6.19, r = 0.83, P < .001, 95% CI: 0.76-0.88; severe: 86.96 ± 5.97 vs. 87.02 ± 6.18, r = 0.91, P < .001, 95% CI: 0.85-0.95). Of 156 cases, 106 were moderate (50%-69%) and 50 severe (≥70%), using NASCET-adapted thresholds accounting for measurement variability. Hypertension (77%), smoking, and syncope were common, with significant association in symptomatic patients (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The CU-Model demonstrates strong concordance with DSA as a practical, post-procedure support tool for vessel segmentation. Pending larger validation studies, it shows promise for enhancing clinical workflow efficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tavlı et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: