Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 26;22(10):1597–1608. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2020.1314

Table 4. Application of Automatic Coronary Calcium Scoring.

Study Year Sensitivity (%), per Lesion False Positives per CT Scan ICC CT Scans for Test (n) Protocol of CT Scan Method of Detection
Wolterink et al. [53] 2016 79 0.2 0.96 530 ECG-gated CT 2.5D patch-based CNN (15 or 25 sizes from axial, coronal, sagittal planes)
Lessmann et al. [13] 2018 91.2 40.7 mm3/scan NA 506 Non-ECG-gated chest CT Cascaded two 2.5D CNNs (CNN1 with large receptive field and CNN2 with smaller receptive field)
Cano-Espinosa et al. [54] 2018 NA NA 0.93* 1000 Non-ECG-gated chest CT CNN based regression model, which directly predicts CAC score
Martin et al. [14] 2020 93.2 NA 0.985 511 ECG-gated CT Two-fold deep-learning models, first one to exclude aorta, aortic valve, mitral valve regions; second one to classify coronary calcium voxels
van Velzen et al. [55] 2020 93 4 mm3/scan 0.99 529 ECG-gated CT
Non-EGC-gated chest CT (n = 3811)
Same as Lessmann et al. 2018 [13]
Lee et al. [39] 2021 93.3 0.11 0.99 2985 ECG-gated CT 3D patch-based CNN for semantic segmentation

*Pearson correlation coefficient, Per-patient sensitivity. CAC = coronary artery calcium score, CNN = convolutional neural network, CT = computed tomography, D = dimensional, ECG = electrocardiography, ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient, NA = not applicable