Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 358

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deep Learning for Prediction of Obstructive Disease From Fast Myocardial Perfusion SPECT

Open access
Betancur, Julian, Commandeur, Frederic, Motlagh, Mahsaw, Sharir, Tali, Einstein, Andrew J., Bokhari, Sabahat, Fish, Mathews B., Ruddy, Terrence D., Kaufmann, Philipp, Sinusas, Albert J., Miller, Edward J., Bateman, Timothy M., Dorbala, Sharmila, Di Carli, Marcelo, Germano, Guido, Otaki, Yuka, Tamarappoo, Balaji K., Dey, Damini, Berman, Daniel S., Slomka, Piotr J.·2018·JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging

Abstract

Objectives We evaluated the automatic prediction of obstructive disease from myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) by deep learning as compared to total perfusion deficit (TPD). Background Deep convolutional neural networks trained with large multi-center population may provide improved prediction of per-patient and per-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) from SPECT MPI. Methods 1638 patients (67% males) without known CAD, undergoing stress 99mTc-sestamibi or tetrofosmin MPI with new generation solid-state scanners in 9 different sites, with invasive coronary angiography performed within 6 months of MPI, were studied. Obstructive disease was defined as ≥ 70% narrowing of coronary arteries (≥ 50% for left main). Left ventricular (LV) myocardium was segmented using clinical nuclear cardiology software and verified by an expert reader. Stress TPD was computed using gender- and camera-specific normal limits. Deep learning was trained using raw and quantitative polar maps and evaluated for prediction of obstructive stenosis in a stratified 10-fold cross validation procedure. Results 1018 (62%) patients and 1797 out of 4914 (37%) arteries had obstructive disease. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) for disease prediction by deep learning was higher than for TPD (per-patient: 0.80 vs. 0.78, per-vessel 0.76 vs. 0.73, P < 0.01). With deep learning threshold set to the same specificity as TPD, per-patient sensitivity improved from 79.8% (TPD) to 82.3% (deep learning) (P < 0.05), and per-vessel sensitivity improved from 64.4% (TPD) to 69.8% (deep learning) (P < 0.01). Conclusions Deep learning has the potential to improve automatic interpretation of MPI as compared to current clinical methods.

Overview

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.jcmg.2018.01.020

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 358

Metadata

Authors
Betancur, J., Commandeur, F., Motlagh, M., Sharir, T., Einstein, A. J., Bokhari, S., Fish, M. B., Ruddy, T. D., Kaufmann, P., Sinusas, A. J., Miller, E. J., Bateman, T. M., Dorbala, S., Di Carli, M., Germano, G., Otaki, Y., Tamarappoo, B. K., Dey, D., Berman, D. S., & Slomka, P. J.
Venue
JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-11
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
1654-1663
ISSN
  • 1876-7591 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-878X
OpenAlex
W2789532252
Cited by
358
References
5
FWCI
25.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deep Learning for Prediction of Obstructive Disease From Fast Myocardial Perfusion SPECT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.01.020
The paper
Betancur, J., Commandeur, F., Motlagh, M., Sharir, T., Einstein, A. J., Bokhari, S., Fish, M. B., Ruddy, T. D., Kaufmann, P., Sinusas, A. J., Miller, E. J., Bateman, T. M., Dorbala, S., Di Carli, M., Germano, G., Otaki, Y., Tamarappoo, B. K., Dey, D., Berman, D. S., & Slomka, P. J. (2018). Deep Learning for Prediction of Obstructive Disease From Fast Myocardial Perfusion SPECT. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.01.020

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.