Feasibility of deep learning-based image reconstruction using TrueFidelity for coronary calcium scoring

We evaluated the feasibility of deep learning-based image reconstruction (DLIR) using GE TrueFidelity at high strength for coronary calcium scoring, compared with filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR; adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V with 80% blending), using a cardiac phantom and clinical data. Calcium scores for FBP, IR, and DLIR were obtained with a cardiac phantom. Subsequently, 113 patients who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography were retrospectively evaluated. The Agatston method was applied to all three techniques to obtain the coronary artery calcium score (CACS). Differences, correlations, and concordance in sectional classification of calcium scores were evaluated across reconstruction methods. In the phantom study, calcium scores were comparable across reconstruction methods. In the clinical study, DLIR had significantly lower scores than FBP (p < 0.001), whereas the comparison between IR and DLIR was statistically non-significant (p = 0.064). Weighted kappa coefficients indicated high agreement in total CACS classification across the reconstruction methods. However, Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated non-negligible individual-level disagreement between FBP and DLIR, with a mean difference of 14.5 and 95% limits of agreement from -52.1 to 81.1. This disagreement may be clinically relevant near established CAC risk-category thresholds, particularly 0, 100, and 300. Among 113 patients, 109 were classified into the same CAC-DRS category by both FBP and DLIR. DLIR underclassified four patients, yielding a false-negative rate of 4.65%. In conclusion, DLIR was feasible for CACS measurement and showed high overall concordance with FBP and IR. However, near-perfect correlation should not be interpreted as interchangeability, because DLIR showed systematic underestimation and non-negligible individual-level disagreement from FBP, particularly in patients with low calcium burden or scores near CAC risk-category thresholds.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-09-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0358342
Primary Topic
Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Feasibility of deep learning-based image reconstruction using TrueFidelity for coronary calcium scoring

Chul Hwan Park, Ji Won Kim, Seung Hyun Lee, Ji Eun Nam et al.
PLoS ONE
Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
article

Feasibility of deep learning-based image reconstruction using TrueFidelity for coronary calcium scoring

Chul Hwan Park, Ji Won Kim, Seung Hyun Lee, Ji Eun Nam, Tae Hoon Kim
article en

Abstract

We evaluated the feasibility of deep learning-based image reconstruction (DLIR) using GE TrueFidelity at high strength for coronary calcium scoring, compared with filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR; adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V with 80% blending), using a cardiac phantom and clinical data. Calcium scores for FBP, IR, and DLIR were obtained with a cardiac phantom. Subsequently, 113 patients who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography were retrospectively evaluated. The Agatston method was applied to all three techniques to obtain the coronary artery calcium score (CACS). Differences, correlations, and concordance in sectional classification of calcium scores were evaluated across reconstruction methods. In the phantom study, calcium scores were comparable across reconstruction methods. In the clinical study, DLIR had significantly lower scores than FBP (p < 0.001), whereas the comparison between IR and DLIR was statistically non-significant (p = 0.064). Weighted kappa coefficients indicated high agreement in total CACS classification across the reconstruction methods. However, Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated non-negligible individual-level disagreement between FBP and DLIR, with a mean difference of 14.5 and 95% limits of agreement from -52.1 to 81.1. This disagreement may be clinically relevant near established CAC risk-category thresholds, particularly 0, 100, and 300. Among 113 patients, 109 were classified into the same CAC-DRS category by both FBP and DLIR. DLIR underclassified four patients, yielding a false-negative rate of 4.65%. In conclusion, DLIR was feasible for CACS measurement and showed high overall concordance with FBP and IR. However, near-perfect correlation should not be interpreted as interchangeability, because DLIR showed systematic underestimation and non-negligible individual-level disagreement from FBP, particularly in patients with low calcium burden or scores near CAC risk-category thresholds.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(9)
Yonsei University (KR)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.