Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug 3;12(8):1876. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12081876

Table 2.

Diagnostic performance of AI-CACS with manual CACS as reference. Data are shown per patient and per coronary artery.

Per Patient Per Coronary Artery
All Patients LM LAD RCX RCA
Sensitivity 85.0%
(77.2–92.8%)
74.5%
(62.5–86.5%)
82.0%
(73.4–91.0%)
64.2%
(51.2–77.1%)
61.7%
(49.4–74.0%)
Specificity 90.0%
(76.9–100%)
79.6%
(68.3–90.9%)
100%
(100–100%)
95.7%
(90.0–100%)
95.0%
(88.2–100%)
Diagnostic accuracy 86.0%
(77.6–92.1%)
77.0%
(67.5–84.8%)
87.0%
(78.8–92.9%)
79.0%
(69.7–86.5%)
75.0%
(65.3–83.1%)
PPV 97.1%
(93.2–100%)
79.2%
(67.7–90.7%)
100%
(100–100%)
94.4%
(87.0–100%)
94.9%
(88.0–100%)
NPV 60.0%
(42.5–77.5%)
75.0%
(63.2–86.8%)
67.5%
(53.0–82.0%)
70.3%
(59.1–81.5%)
62.3%
(50.1–74.4%)
Total, n 100 100 100 100 100
True positive, n 68 38 60 34 37
False negative, n 12 13 13 19 23
True negative, n 18 39 27 45 38
False positive, n 2 10 0 2 2

LM left main, LAD left anterior descending, RCX ramus circumflex, RCA right coronary artery, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value. Data are presented as sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, PPV, and NPV % (95% confidence interval).