PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 14, 2026Diagnostics0 citationsOpen Access

Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Aortic Arch Calcification on Chest Radiographs: A Systematic Review

View Full Paper
KŻKrzysztof ŻerdzińskiJJJulita JaniecMDMaja Dreger

Key Points

  • To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI models for detecting aortic arch calcification on chest radiographs and assess clinical implementation.
  • Followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines
  • Conducted a search across Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science
  • Included retrospective studies utilizing CNNs
  • Assessed bias using QUADAS-2
  • Performed narrative synthesis due to methodological heterogeneity.
  • Included three retrospective studies using CNNs over ~2.7 million images
  • Models showed high diagnostic discrimination with AUROC between 0.81–0.99
  • Notable sensitivity-specificity trade-offs observed
  • One model achieved 95.9% recall, while another had near-perfect specificity (0.99) but low sensitivity (0.22)
  • Overall GRADE certainty remained low due to methodological heterogeneity.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Aortic-arch calcification (AAC) is a robust predictor of cardiovascular events often overlooked on routine chest radiographs (CXR). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) models for detecting AAC on CXR and assess their potential for clinical implementation. Methods: The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251208627). A search of Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted (Jan 2020–Oct 2025) for studies evaluating AI models detecting AAC in adults. Bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Due to methodological heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed instead of a meta-analysis. Results: Out of 115 records, three retrospective studies (2022–2024) utilizing CNNs across ~2.7 million images were included. Models demonstrated high diagnostic discrimination (AUROC 0.81–0.99), though performance estimates were often attenuated in external cohorts. Pronounced sensitivity–specificity trade-offs occurred: one model achieved 95.9% recall, while another exhibited near-perfect specificity (0.99) despite markedly low sensitivity (0.22). Although the risk of bias was predominantly low, the overall GRADE certainty remained low due to methodological heterogeneity and the absence of cross-sectional imaging reference standards. Conclusions: Deep learning-based models reliably detect AAC on routine CXR, offering a scalable tool for opportunistic cardiovascular risk stratification. However, significant heterogeneity in model architectures and validation strategies currently limits broad comparability. Future research requires standardized annotation protocols and external validation to ensure clinical generalizability.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Żerdziński et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6966e73513bf7a6f02bffc2dhttps://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16020243
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Detection of subclinical atherosclerosis by image-based deep learning on chest X-ray2025 · 4 citations
  2. 2Detection of subclinical atherosclerosis by image-based deep learning on chest x-ray2024
  3. 3AI-driven Abdominal Aortic Calcification Extracted From Contrast-enhanced CT Is Predictive of All-cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Events in a Large Adult Population2026 · 1 citations
  4. 4Artificial intelligence in coronary artery calcification scoring: Current progress and future directions2025
  5. 5Prognostication and clinical opportunities with AI for coronary artery calcium: a scoping review2026