Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Generative Models for Reproducible Coronary Calcium Scoring (2205.11967v1)

Published 24 May 2022 in eess.IV and cs.CV

Abstract: Purpose: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, i.e. the amount of CAC quantified in CT, is a strong and independent predictor of coronary heart disease (CHD) events. However, CAC scoring suffers from limited interscan reproducibility, which is mainly due to the clinical definition requiring application of a fixed intensity level threshold for segmentation of calcifications. This limitation is especially pronounced in non-ECG-synchronized CT where lesions are more impacted by cardiac motion and partial volume effects. Therefore, we propose a CAC quantification method that does not require a threshold for segmentation of CAC. Approach: Our method utilizes a generative adversarial network where a CT with CAC is decomposed into an image without CAC and an image showing only CAC. The method, using a CycleGAN, was trained using 626 low-dose chest CTs and 514 radiotherapy treatment planning CTs. Interscan reproducibility was compared to clinical calcium scoring in radiotherapy treatment planning CTs of 1,662 patients, each having two scans. Results: A lower relative interscan difference in CAC mass was achieved by the proposed method: 47% compared to 89% manual clinical calcium scoring. The intraclass correlation coefficient of Agatston scores was 0.96 for the proposed method compared to 0.91 for automatic clinical calcium scoring. Conclusions: The increased interscan reproducibility achieved by our method may lead to increased reliability of CHD risk categorization and improved accuracy of CHD event prediction.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (6)
  1. Sanne G. M. van Velzen (4 papers)
  2. Bob D. de Vos (18 papers)
  3. Julia M. H. Noothout (4 papers)
  4. Helena M. Verkooijen (2 papers)
  5. Max A. Viergever (32 papers)
  6. Ivana IĆĄgum (41 papers)
Citations (5)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.