Cited by 20Cardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

Automated calcium scores collected during myocardial perfusion imaging improve identification of obstructive coronary artery disease

Open access
Dekker, Mirthe, Waissi, Farahnaz, Bank, Ingrid E.M., Lessmann, Nikolas, Išgum, Ivana, Velthuis, Birgitta K., Scholtens, Asbjørn M., Leenders, Geert E. +4 more·2020·IJC Heart & Vasculature

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is an accurate noninvasive test for patients with suspected obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and coronary artery calcium (CAC) score is known to be a powerful predictor of cardiovascular events. Collection of CAC scores simultaneously with MPI is unexplored. AIM: We aimed to investigate whether automatically derived CAC scores during myocardial perfusion imaging would further improve the diagnostic accuracy of MPI to detect obstructive CAD. METHODS: We analyzed 150 consecutive patients without a history of coronary revascularization with suspected obstructive CAD who were referred for 82Rb PET/CT and available coronary angiographic data. Myocardial perfusion was evaluated both semi quantitatively as well as quantitatively according to the European guidelines. CAC scores were automatically derived from the low-dose attenuation correction CT scans using previously developed software based on deep learning. Obstructive CAD was defined as stenosis >70% (or >50% in the left main coronary artery) and/or fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.80. RESULTS: In total 58% of patients had obstructive CAD of which seventy-four percent were male. Addition of CAC scores to MPI and clinical predictors significantly improved the diagnostic accuracy of MPI to detect obstructive CAD. The area under the curve (AUC) increased from 0.87 to 0.91 (p: 0.025). Sensitivity and specificity analysis showed an incremental decrease in false negative tests with our MPI + CAC approach (n = 14 to n = 4), as a consequence an increase in false positive tests was seen (n = 11 to n = 28). CONCLUSION: CAC scores collected simultaneously with MPI improve the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients without a history of coronary revascularization.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijcha.2019.100434

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI-CAC models generally relied on traditional categorical CAC (e.g., Agatston score risk categories of 0, 1-99, 100-399, ≥400) along with clinical features as core inputs, although several approaches extended quantification to individual coronary vessels or segments.

    “AI-CAC models generally relied on traditional categorical CAC (eg, Agatston score risk categories of 0, 1–99, 100–399, ≥400) along with clinical features as core inputs, although several approaches extended quantification to the level of individual coronary vessels or segments to capture regional burden and distribution.3334”

    From Prognostication and clinical opportunities with AI for coronary artery calcium: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dekker, M., Waissi, F., Bank, I. E. M., Lessmann, N., Išgum, I., Velthuis, B. K., Scholtens, A. M., Leenders, G. E., Pasterkamp, G., de Kleijn, D. P. V., Timmers, L., & Mosterd, A.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • St. Antonius Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • Meander Medisch Centrum (NL)
Corresponding author
Dekker, Mirthe
Venue
IJC Heart & Vasculature
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
26
Pages
100434
ISSN
2352-9067 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2991287954
Cited by
20
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IJC Heart & Vasculature (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Dutch Heart Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
coronary artery calcium score, myocardial perfusion imaging, obstructive coronary artery disease, deep learning, diagnostic accuracy, fractional flow reserve, coronary artery stenosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review