Skip to main content

Table 2 Diagnostic performance of the six readers and the AI system alone for the same set of patients

From: Artificial intelligence stenosis diagnosis in coronary CTA: effect on the performance and consistency of readers with less cardiovascular experience

Reader

Sensitivity (%)

Specificity (%)

PPV (%)

NPV (%)

Accuracy (%)

AI

93.5 (88.1, 97.0)

57.9 (44.1, 70.9)

84.4

78.6

80.0 (73.1, 84.9)

Reader 1

70.5 (62.2, 77.9)

54.4 (40.7, 67.6)

79.0

43.1

69.1 (62.1, 75.4)

Reader 2

78.4 (70.6, 84.9)

57. 9 (44.1, 70.9)

82.0

52.4

69.0 (62.0, 75.4)

Reader 3

85.6 (78.7, 91.0)

45.6 (32.4, 59.3)

79.3

56.5

71.2 (64.3, 77.5)

Reader 4

87.1 (80.3, 92.1)

40.4 (27.6, 54.2)

78.1

56.1

67.8 (60.8, 74.3)

Reader 5

65.5 (56.9, 73.3)

68.4 (54.8, 80.1)

83.5

44.8

77.3 (70.8, 83.0)

Reader 6

77.7 (69.9, 84.3)

64.9 (51.1, 77.1)

84.4

54.4

75.6 (69.0, 81.5)

  1. Data in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals
  2. AI artificial intelligence, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value