Ronald M Summers1, Daniel C Elton2, Sungwon Lee2, Yingying Zhu2, Jiamin Liu2, Mohammedhadi Bagheri2, Veit Sandfort2, Peter C Grayson3, Nehal N Mehta4, Peter A Pinto5, W Marston Linehan5, Alberto A Perez6, Peter M Graffy6, Stacy D O'Connor6, Perry J Pickhardt6. 1. Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bldg. 10 Room 1C224D MSC 1182, Bethesda, MD 20892-1182. Electronic address: rms@nih.gov. 2. Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bldg. 10 Room 1C224D MSC 1182, Bethesda, MD 20892-1182. 3. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Urologic Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic atherosclerotic plaque burden may have clinical significance but manual measurement is time-consuming and impractical. PURPOSE: To perform external validation on an automated atherosclerotic plaque detector for noncontrast and postcontrast abdominal CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The training data consisted of 114 noncontrast CT scans and 23 postcontrast CT urography scans. The testing data set consisted of 922 CT colonography (CTC) scans, and 1207 paired noncontrast and postcontrast CT scans from renal donors from a second institution. Reference standard data included manual plaque segmentations in the 137 training scans and manual plaque burden measurements in the 922 CTC scans. The total Agatston score and group (0-3) was determined using fully-automated deep learning software. Performance was assessed by measures of agreement, linear regression, and paired evaluations. RESULTS: On CTC scans, automated Agatston scoring correlated highly with manual assessment (R2 = 0.94). On paired renal donor CT scans, automated Agatston scoring on postcontrast CT correlated highly with noncontrast CT (R2 = 0.95). When plaque burden was expressed as a group score, there was excellent agreement for both the CTC (weighted kappa 0.80 ± 0.01 [95% confidence interval: 0.78-0.83]) and renal donor (0.83 ± 0.02 [0.79-0.86]) assessments. CONCLUSION: Fully automated detection, segmentation, and scoring of abdominal aortic atherosclerotic plaques on both pre- and post-contrast CT was validated and may have application for population-based studies.
BACKGROUND:Abdominal aortic atherosclerotic plaque burden may have clinical significance but manual measurement is time-consuming and impractical. PURPOSE: To perform external validation on an automated atherosclerotic plaque detector for noncontrast and postcontrast abdominal CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The training data consisted of 114 noncontrast CT scans and 23 postcontrast CT urography scans. The testing data set consisted of 922 CT colonography (CTC) scans, and 1207 paired noncontrast and postcontrast CT scans from renal donors from a second institution. Reference standard data included manual plaque segmentations in the 137 training scans and manual plaque burden measurements in the 922 CTC scans. The total Agatston score and group (0-3) was determined using fully-automated deep learning software. Performance was assessed by measures of agreement, linear regression, and paired evaluations. RESULTS: On CTC scans, automated Agatston scoring correlated highly with manual assessment (R2 = 0.94). On paired renal donor CT scans, automated Agatston scoring on postcontrast CT correlated highly with noncontrast CT (R2 = 0.95). When plaque burden was expressed as a group score, there was excellent agreement for both the CTC (weighted kappa 0.80 ± 0.01 [95% confidence interval: 0.78-0.83]) and renal donor (0.83 ± 0.02 [0.79-0.86]) assessments. CONCLUSION: Fully automated detection, segmentation, and scoring of abdominal aortic atherosclerotic plaques on both pre- and post-contrast CT was validated and may have application for population-based studies.
Authors: Jesse A Davila; C Daniel Johnson; Thomas R Behrenbeck; Tanya L Hoskin; William S Harmsen Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Peter M Graffy; Ryan Zea; Scott J Lee; Jiamin Liu; Veit Sandfort; Ronald M Summers Journal: Lancet Digit Health Date: 2020-03-02
Authors: Matthew A Allison; Matthew J Budoff; Khurram Nasir; Nathan D Wong; Robert Detrano; Richard Kronmal; Junichiro Takasu; Michael H Criqui Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Ronald M Summers; Hima Tallam; Daniel C Elton; Sungwon Lee; Paul Wakim Journal: Radiology Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Peter M Graffy; Alberto A Perez; Meghan G Lubner; Daniel C Elton; Ronald M Summers Journal: Radiographics Date: 2021 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333