A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Performance of a deep learning algorithm for the evaluation of CAD-RADS classification with CCTA. | LitMetric

Background And Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasing its role in diagnosis of patients with suspicious coronary artery disease. The aim of this manuscript is to develop a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) to classify coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in the correct Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) category.

Methods: Two hundred eighty eight patients who underwent clinically indicated CCTA were included in this single-center retrospective study. The CCTAs were stratified by CAD-RADS scores by expert readers and considered as reference standard. A deep CNN was designed and tested on the CCTA dataset and compared to on-site reading. The deep CNN analyzed the diagnostic accuracy of the following three Models based on CAD-RADS classification: Model A (CAD-RADS 0 vs CAD-RADS 1-2 vs CAD-RADS 3,4,5), Model 1 (CAD-RADS 0 vs CAD-RADS>0), Model 2 (CAD-RADS 0-2 vs CAD-RADS 3-5). Time of analysis for both physicians and CNN were recorded.

Results: Model A showed a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy of 47%, 74%, 77%, 46% and 60%, respectively. Model 1 showed a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy of 66%, 91%, 92%, 63%, 86%, respectively. Conversely, Model 2 demonstrated the following sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy: 82%, 58%, 74%, 69%, 71%, respectively. Time of analysis was significantly lower using CNN as compared to on-site reading (530.5 ± 179.1 vs 104.3 ± 1.4 sec, p=0.01) CONCLUSIONS: Deep CNN yielded accurate automated classification of patients with CAD-RADS.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2019.12.001DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

deep cnn
12
model cad-rads
12
sensitivity specificity
12
specificity negative
12
negative predictive
12
predictive positive
12
positive predictive
12
predictive accuracy
12
cad-rads
11
cad-rads classification
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!