Cited by 11Cardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Artificial Intelligence in Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring

Open access
Aromiwura, Afolasayo A., Kalra, Dinesh K.·2024·Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly coronary heart disease (CHD), is the leading cause of death in the US, with a high economic impact. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is a known marker for CHD and a useful tool for estimating the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Although CACS is recommended for informing the decision to initiate statin therapy, the current standard requires a dedicated CT protocol, which is time-intensive and contributes to radiation exposure. Non-dedicated CT protocols can be taken advantage of to visualize calcium and reduce overall cost and radiation exposure; however, they mainly provide visual estimates of coronary calcium and have disadvantages such as motion artifacts. Artificial intelligence is a growing field involving software that independently performs human-level tasks, and is well suited for improving CACS efficiency and repurposing non-dedicated CT for calcium scoring. We present a review of the current studies on automated CACS across various CT protocols and discuss consideration points in clinical application and some barriers to implementation.

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 · 10.3390/jcm13123453

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • More than 60 published and proprietary AI algorithms for CAC detection and scoring on chest imaging have been reviewed in the last 2 years, varying in populations, imaging protocols, training datasets, validation approaches and model architectures.

    “More than 60 published and proprietary AI algorithms for CAC detection and scoring on chest imaging (AI-CAC) have been reviewed in the last 2 years,12–15 varying in populations, imaging protocols, training datasets, validation approaches and model architectures.”

    From Prognostication and clinical opportunities with AI for coronary artery calcium: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

    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
  • Reviews of AI-CAC generally focused on algorithmic performance rather than clinical implementation.

    “Reviews generally focused on algorithmic performance rather than clinical implementation.”

    From Prognostication and clinical opportunities with AI for coronary artery calcium: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Abstract says this review covers automated CAC-scoring studies and barriers to clinical implementation, and Section 4 discusses implementation directly. The copy does not assess whether reviews generally emphasize algorithmic performance over clinical implementation; searches for prior reviews and that comparison found no such passage. Page numbers were not available in the copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    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

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aromiwura, A. A., & Kalra, D. K.
Affiliations
University of Louisville (US)
Corresponding author
Kalra, Dinesh K.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-06-13
Volume
13
Issue
12
Pages
3453
ISSN
2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399603140
Cited by
11
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
coronary artery calcium scoring, artificial intelligence, radiation exposure, coronary artery disease, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, motion artifacts, CT angiography

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