Chest PainNCT07235657
AI-Assisted Interpretation of Cardiac CT in the Emergency Department
A study testing Angiomics AI-based Coronary CT Interpretation Tool and Standard CCTA Interpretation without AI in people with Chest Pain and Acute Coronary Syndrome, run by Yonsei University at 1 site in South Korea.
Trial summary
This prospective, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial is designed to evaluate the impact of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) interpretation tool (Angiomics) on emergency physicians' diagnostic performance and clinical decision-making in patients presenting with… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Chest Pain, Acute Coronary Syndrome, Coronary Artery Disease
- What is being tested?
- Angiomics AI-based Coronary CT Interpretation Tool and Standard CCTA Interpretation without AI
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 620 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSouth Korea
- Study dates
- 29 Dec 2025to Aug 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Adults aged 18 years or older Patients presenting to the emergency department with acute chest pain or chest discomfort Patients assessed as intermediate risk (Heart Score 4-6) Patients for whom CCTA was ordered by the treating physician as part of routine clinical care
Who cannot join
- Prior history of coronary revascularization (coronary artery bypass graft surgery or stent placement) Presence of intracardiac metallic devices such as pacemaker or prosthetic heart valves Contraindications to contrast media (e.g., contrast allergy, severe renal impairment with eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m²) Patients unable to cooperate (e.g., severe anxiety, non-cooperation) Non-diagnostic CCTA images are identified after image acquisition and handled according to the protocol-defined analysis exclusions.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
South Korea1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yonsei University Severance Hospital
Seoul
arom choi, MD, +82-2-2228-2465, aromchoi@yuhs.ac
About this study
Official title: Evaluation of the Impact of AI-Based Cardiac CT Interpretation Tool on Emergency Physicians' Decision-Making
This prospective, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial is designed to evaluate the impact of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) interpretation tool (Angiomics) on emergency physicians' diagnostic performance and clinical decision-making in patients presenting with acute chest pain.
CCTA is a critical diagnostic modality for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the emergency department (ED). Accurate interpretation often requires experienced radiologists, who may not always be available, particularly during off-hours. The introduction of AI-based interpretation tools into clinical workflow has the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, increase physician confidence, reduce delays in decision-making, and improve efficiency of resource utilization. However, evidence regarding the real-world effectiveness of such AI tools in the ED setting remains limited.
Read more
Eligible participants will include adults aged 18 years or older presenting to the ED with chest pain and classified as intermediate risk (HEART score 4-6). Participants will be randomized into two groups: (1) AI-assisted CCTA interpretation, in which emergency physicians interpret scans with access to AI results; and (2) standard interpretation, in which emergency physicians interpret CCTA without AI support. In both groups, physicians will document the presence of stenosis in the four major coronary arteries (LM, LAD, LCX, RCA).
After informed consent, participants are randomised in a 1:1 ratio before CCTA acquisition to AI-assisted or standard CCTA interpretation. Diagnostic confidence is recorded using four categories: very high, high, moderate and low. The enrolment target is 620 participants, with 310 participants per group. This is a single-centre trial conducted at Severance Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
The primary outcome is the negative predictive value (NPV) of CCTA interpretation at the patient level, comparing AI-assisted versus standard interpretations against the reference standard of blinded consensus readings by board-certified radiologists. Secondary outcomes include per-patient diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, PPV and AUROC), per-vessel diagnostic performance, emergency physician diagnostic confidence and protocol deviation rate. Other outcomes include cardiology consultation rate and time to disposition decision.
Enrollment and follow-up will be conducted at Severance Hospital over a 24-month period following IRB approval. The results are expected to provide evidence for the clinical utility and effectiveness of AI-based CCTA interpretation in the ED and to guide integration of AI into emergency care in order to optimize patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency.
Read the detailed description
This study is a prospective, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the impact of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) interpretation tool (Angiomics) on the diagnostic accuracy, confidence, and decision-making of emergency physicians in patients presenting with acute chest pain.
Background and Rationale CCTA is widely used in the emergency department (ED) for patients presenting with acute chest pain or suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). It provides rapid and precise visualization of the coronary arteries and assists emergency physicians in making time-sensitive clinical decisions. However, interpretation of CCTA requires specialized training and experience, which may not always be available, particularly during nights or in resource-limited settings. This limitation can delay diagnosis and treatment, potentially leading to adverse patient outcomes.
Recent advances in AI technology have enabled the development of automated tools capable of analyzing CCTA images and identifying clinically significant findings such as coronary artery stenosis and myocardial ischemia. These tools have the potential to support emergency physicians by improving diagnostic accuracy, reducing interpretation time, enhancing physician confidence, and optimizing the use of healthcare resources. Despite these advantages, the influence of AI-based interpretation on real-world ED clinical workflows and physician decision-making remains insufficiently studied.
The present trial is designed to address this knowledge gap by evaluating whether the integration of an AI-based CCTA interpretation tool improves emergency physician diagnostic performance and clinical confidence, and whether such improvements translate into more reliable decision-making in the ED.
Study Design This study will employ a prospective, pragmatic, randomized controlled design. Eligible participants will be adults aged 18 years or older presenting to the ED with chest pain and classified as intermediate risk according to the HEART score (4-6 points). Participants are randomised after informed consent and before CCTA acquisition. Allocation is 1:1 between the AI-assisted interpretation group and the standard interpretation group.
- AI-assisted group (Experimental Arm): Emergency physicians interpret CCTA scans with access to AI results provided by the Angiomics software.
- Standard interpretation group (Active Comparator Arm): Emergency physicians interpret CCTA scans without access to AI results.
All physicians will evaluate stenosis in the four major coronary arteries (left main, left anterior descending [LAD], left circumflex [LCX], and right coronary artery [RCA]) and record their findings using a standardized format (Yes/No/Non-diagnostic/Other findings). Emergency physicians record diagnostic confidence using four categories: very high, high, moderate and low.
Reference Standard The reference standard for diagnostic performance will be the blinded consensus interpretation of board-certified radiologists specialized in thoracic imaging. Previous studies have demonstrated concordance of 98-99% between expert radiologist consensus and invasive coronary angiography, supporting the validity of this approach.
Outcomes The primary outcome is the negative predictive value (NPV) of CCTA interpretation at the patient level, comparing AI-assisted versus standard interpretations. Patient-level outcomes will be derived by aggregating findings across the four major coronary arteries.
Secondary outcomes include:
- Per-patient diagnostic performance: sensitivity, specificity, PPV and AUROC
- Per-vessel diagnostic performance for LM, LAD, LCx and RCA: sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and AUROC
- Emergency physician diagnostic confidence (four categories)
- Protocol deviation rate Other outcomes include cardiology consultation rate and time to disposition decision.
Reader Experience and Image Quality Emergency physician imaging training, prior CCTA interpretation experience and years of clinical experience are collected. Image quality is assessed by a radiologist blinded to AI outputs, emergency physician interpretations and allocation, and classified as Poor/Fair or Good/Excellent. These variables are considered in exploratory adjusted analyses.
Analysis Population and Preliminary Interpretation Exposure The primary analysis uses a modified intention-to-treat population, excluding participants whose emergency physician was exposed to a preliminary radiology interpretation before completing the study interpretation. AI processing failures remain in the assigned group. A sensitivity analysis includes participants with prior preliminary radiology exposure when both index and reference interpretations are available.
Sample Size and Statistical Analysis The original enrolment target was 552 participants, with 276 participants per group, allowing for 10% dropout. Following consultation with a statistician, the target was revised using a pooled negative diagnosis rate of 64.9% to obtain 181 negative interpretations per group. Allowing for 10% dropout, the required sample size was 181/(0.649 × 0.90), rounded up to 310 participants per group, for a total of 620 participants. The IRB approved the sample-size amendment on 20 July 2026. The persons responsible for the sample-size decision did not have access to group-specific interim results.
An interim analysis was conducted on 8 September 2026. Type I error is controlled using the prespecified O'Brien-Fleming alpha-spending approach, accounting for the actual information fraction.
Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy) will be compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate. Agreement between physician and radiologist consensus readings will be assessed using Cohen's Kappa. All statistical tests will be two-sided.
Data Collection and Confidentiality Data will be collected within the routine clinical workflow and stored in a secure, de-identified format according to institutional policies and national privacy regulations. Only authorized investigators will have access to the data. Data will be stored for three years after study completion before secure disposal.
Safety and Monitoring This trial poses minimal risk to participants, as it involves no procedures outside of routine clinical care. No additional radiation, medications, or invasive interventions are introduced by study participation. The study principal investigator will monitor protocol adherence and data quality on an annual basis. The study is subject to continuing IRB review and institutional monitoring or audit in accordance with institutional procedures. The principal investigator is responsible for protocol adherence, data integrity and safety reporting.
Significance This study will provide evidence regarding the clinical utility of an AI-based CCTA interpretation tool in the ED. Findings are expected to clarify whether AI support improves diagnostic accuracy and physician confidence, and whether it can be effectively integrated into real-world emergency care. The results may inform best practices for the implementation of AI tools to optimize patient outcomes and resource utilization in acute care settings.
- Conditions
- Chest Pain, Acute Coronary Syndrome, Coronary Artery Disease
- Being tested
- Angiomics AI-based Coronary CT Interpretation Tool, Standard CCTA Interpretation without AI
- Keywords
- Artificial Intelligence, Emergency Service, Hospital, Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography
- Medical subject headings
- Chest Pain, Acute Coronary Syndrome, Coronary Artery Disease, Emergencies
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Angiomics AI-based Coronary CT Interpretation ToolDevice
AI software integrated with the hospital PACS system to assist emergency physicians in interpreting coronary CT angiography (CCTA). The tool automatically analyzes stenosis in the left main, LAD, LCX, and RCA, and physicians use the results to guide their interpretation.
Standard CCTA Interpretation without AIOther
Emergency physicians independently interpret coronary CT angiography (CCTA) without access to the AI tool. Physicians evaluate stenosis in the left main, LAD, LCX, and RCA, and report diagnostic confidence using a four-category confidence rating: very high, high, moderate and low.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| AI-assisted CCTA interpretation | Experimental | Emergency physicians interpret coronary CT angiography (CCTA) with the assistance of an AI-based interpretation tool (Angiomics). Physicians record stenosis presence in four major coronary vessels and rate diagnostic confidence using a four-category confidence rating: very high, high, moderate and low. Receives: Device: Angiomics AI-based Coronary CT Interpretation Tool |
| Standard CCTA interpretation (without AI) | Active comparator | Emergency physicians independently interpret coronary CT angiography (CCTA) without access to the AI-based interpretation tool. Physicians record stenosis presence in four major coronary vessels and rate diagnostic confidence using a four-category confidence rating: very high, high, moderate and low. Receives: Other: Standard CCTA Interpretation without AI |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Per-patient negative predictive value of emergency physician CCTA interpretation
Negative predictive value is the number of true-negative patients divided by all patients classified as negative by the emergency physician, using blinded expert radiologist consensus as the reference standard. Significant coronary stenosis is defined as ≥50% luminal narrowing. A patient is classified as positive if at least one of the four major coronary vessels (LM, LAD, LCx or RCA) is positive, and as negative if all four vessels are negative. Negative predictive value is compared between the AI-assisted and standard interpretation groups.
Measured: During the initial emergency department visit, at the time of index CCTA interpretation.
Secondary outcomes (4)
Per-patient diagnostic performance
Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of emergency physician interpretation, using blinded expert radiologist consensus as the reference standard. AUROC is calculated from binary stenosis classifications.
Measured: During the initial emergency department visit, at the time of index CCTA interpretation.
Per-vessel diagnostic performance
Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and AUROC for the LM, LAD, LCx and RCA, using blinded expert radiologist consensus as the reference standard.
Measured: During the initial emergency department visit, at the time of index CCTA interpretation.
Emergency physician diagnostic confidence
Distribution of four-category confidence ratings (very high, high, moderate and low), compared between randomised groups.
Measured: At completion of the emergency physician's index CCTA interpretation during the initial emergency department visit.
Protocol deviation rate
Proportion of randomised participants with a documented protocol deviation.
Measured: During the initial emergency department episode.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Nov 2025
- Study start29 Dec 2025
- Primary completionJun 2027 (estimated)
- Study completionAug 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Chest PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Yonsei UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 620 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Yonsei University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07235657
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 4-2025-1002
- Status last verified
- Nov 2026
- First submitted
- 14 Nov 2025
- Last updated
- 5 Nov 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: Requests for de-identified individual participant data, a data dictionary and analysis code will be considered after publication of the primary results. Access is subject to IRB approval and applicable confidentiality requirements.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 5 Nov 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evaluation of the Impact of AI-Based Cardiac CT Interpretation Tool on Emergency Physicians' Decision-Making
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07235657
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 4-2025-1002
- Conditions
- Chest Pain, Acute Coronary Syndrome, Coronary Artery Disease
- Keywords
- Artificial Intelligence, Emergency Service, Hospital, Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 620 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Yonsei UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 29 Dec 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Aug 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 19 Nov 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This prospective, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial is designed to evaluate the impact of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) interpretation tool (Angiomics) on emergency physicians' diagnostic performance and clinical decision-making in patients presenting with acute chest pain.
CCTA is a critical diagnostic modality for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the emergency department (ED). Accurate interpretation often requires experienced radiologists, who may not always be available, particularly during off-hours. The introduction of AI-based interpretation tools into clinical workflow has the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, increase physician confidence, reduce delays in decision-making, and improve efficiency of resource utilization. However, evidence regarding the real-world effectiveness of such AI tools in the ED setting remains limited.
Eligible participants will include adults aged 18 years or older presenting to the ED with chest pain and classified as intermediate risk (HEART score 4-6). Participants will be randomized into two groups: (1) AI-assisted CCTA interpretation, in which emergency physicians interpret scans with access to AI results; and (2) standard interpretation, in which emergency physicians interpret CCTA without AI support. In both groups, physicians will document the presence of stenosis in the four major coronary arteries (LM, LAD, LCX, RCA).
After informed consent, participants are randomised in a 1:1 ratio before CCTA acquisition to AI-assisted or standard CCTA interpretation. Diagnostic confidence is recorded using four categories: very high, high, moderate and low. The enrolment target is 620 participants, with 310 participants per group. This is a single-centre trial conducted at Severance Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
The primary outcome is the negative predictive value (NPV) of CCTA interpretation at the patient level, comparing AI-assisted versus standard interpretations against the reference standard of blinded consensus readings by board-certified radiologists. Secondary outcomes include per-patient diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, PPV and AUROC), per-vessel diagnostic performance, emergency physician diagnostic confidence and protocol deviation rate. Other outcomes include cardiology consultation rate and time to disposition decision.
Enrollment and follow-up will be conducted at Severance Hospital over a 24-month period following IRB approval. The results are expected to provide evidence for the clinical utility and effectiveness of AI-based CCTA interpretation in the ED and to guide integration of AI into emergency care in order to optimize patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency.
Detailed description
This study is a prospective, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the impact of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) interpretation tool (Angiomics) on the diagnostic accuracy, confidence, and decision-making of emergency physicians in patients presenting with acute chest pain.
Background and Rationale CCTA is widely used in the emergency department (ED) for patients presenting with acute chest pain or suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). It provides rapid and precise visualization of the coronary arteries and assists emergency physicians in making time-sensitive clinical decisions. However, interpretation of CCTA requires specialized training and experience, which may not always be available, particularly during nights or in resource-limited settings. This limitation can delay diagnosis and treatment, potentially leading to adverse patient outcomes.
Recent advances in AI technology have enabled the development of automated tools capable of analyzing CCTA images and identifying clinically significant findings such as coronary artery stenosis and myocardial ischemia. These tools have the potential to support emergency physicians by improving diagnostic accuracy, reducing interpretation time, enhancing physician confidence, and optimizing the use of healthcare resources. Despite these advantages, the influence of AI-based interpretation on real-world ED clinical workflows and physician decision-making remains insufficiently studied.
The present trial is designed to address this knowledge gap by evaluating whether the integration of an AI-based CCTA interpretation tool improves emergency physician diagnostic performance and clinical confidence, and whether such improvements translate into more reliable decision-making in the ED.
Study Design This study will employ a prospective, pragmatic, randomized controlled design. Eligible participants will be adults aged 18 years or older presenting to the ED with chest pain and classified as intermediate risk according to the HEART score (4-6 points). Participants are randomised after informed consent and before CCTA acquisition. Allocation is 1:1 between the AI-assisted interpretation group and the standard interpretation group.
- AI-assisted group (Experimental Arm): Emergency physicians interpret CCTA scans with access to AI results provided by the Angiomics software.
- Standard interpretation group (Active Comparator Arm): Emergency physicians interpret CCTA scans without access to AI results.
All physicians will evaluate stenosis in the four major coronary arteries (left main, left anterior descending [LAD], left circumflex [LCX], and right coronary artery [RCA]) and record their findings using a standardized format (Yes/No/Non-diagnostic/Other findings). Emergency physicians record diagnostic confidence using four categories: very high, high, moderate and low.
Reference Standard The reference standard for diagnostic performance will be the blinded consensus interpretation of board-certified radiologists specialized in thoracic imaging. Previous studies have demonstrated concordance of 98-99% between expert radiologist consensus and invasive coronary angiography, supporting the validity of this approach.
Outcomes The primary outcome is the negative predictive value (NPV) of CCTA interpretation at the patient level, comparing AI-assisted versus standard interpretations. Patient-level outcomes will be derived by aggregating findings across the four major coronary arteries.
Secondary outcomes include:
- Per-patient diagnostic performance: sensitivity, specificity, PPV and AUROC
- Per-vessel diagnostic performance for LM, LAD, LCx and RCA: sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and AUROC
- Emergency physician diagnostic confidence (four categories)
- Protocol deviation rate Other outcomes include cardiology consultation rate and time to disposition decision.
Reader Experience and Image Quality Emergency physician imaging training, prior CCTA interpretation experience and years of clinical experience are collected. Image quality is assessed by a radiologist blinded to AI outputs, emergency physician interpretations and allocation, and classified as Poor/Fair or Good/Excellent. These variables are considered in exploratory adjusted analyses.
Analysis Population and Preliminary Interpretation Exposure The primary analysis uses a modified intention-to-treat population, excluding participants whose emergency physician was exposed to a preliminary radiology interpretation before completing the study interpretation. AI processing failures remain in the assigned group. A sensitivity analysis includes participants with prior preliminary radiology exposure when both index and reference interpretations are available.
Sample Size and Statistical Analysis The original enrolment target was 552 participants, with 276 participants per group, allowing for 10% dropout. Following consultation with a statistician, the target was revised using a pooled negative diagnosis rate of 64.9% to obtain 181 negative interpretations per group. Allowing for 10% dropout, the required sample size was 181/(0.649 × 0.90), rounded up to 310 participants per group, for a total of 620 participants. The IRB approved the sample-size amendment on 20 July 2026. The persons responsible for the sample-size decision did not have access to group-specific interim results.
An interim analysis was conducted on 8 September 2026. Type I error is controlled using the prespecified O'Brien-Fleming alpha-spending approach, accounting for the actual information fraction.
Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy) will be compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate. Agreement between physician and radiologist consensus readings will be assessed using Cohen's Kappa. All statistical tests will be two-sided.
Data Collection and Confidentiality Data will be collected within the routine clinical workflow and stored in a secure, de-identified format according to institutional policies and national privacy regulations. Only authorized investigators will have access to the data. Data will be stored for three years after study completion before secure disposal.
Safety and Monitoring This trial poses minimal risk to participants, as it involves no procedures outside of routine clinical care. No additional radiation, medications, or invasive interventions are introduced by study participation. The study principal investigator will monitor protocol adherence and data quality on an annual basis. The study is subject to continuing IRB review and institutional monitoring or audit in accordance with institutional procedures. The principal investigator is responsible for protocol adherence, data integrity and safety reporting.
Significance This study will provide evidence regarding the clinical utility of an AI-based CCTA interpretation tool in the ED. Findings are expected to clarify whether AI support improves diagnostic accuracy and physician confidence, and whether it can be effectively integrated into real-world emergency care. The results may inform best practices for the implementation of AI tools to optimize patient outcomes and resource utilization in acute care settings.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| AI-assisted CCTA interpretation | Experimental | Device: Angiomics AI-based Coronary CT Interpretation ToolEmergency physicians interpret coronary CT angiography (CCTA) with the assistance of an AI-based interpretation tool (Angiomics). Physicians record stenosis presence in four major coronary vessels and rate diagnostic confidence using a four-category confidence rating: very high, high, moderate and low. |
| Standard CCTA interpretation (without AI) | Active comparator | Other: Standard CCTA Interpretation without AIEmergency physicians independently interpret coronary CT angiography (CCTA) without access to the AI-based interpretation tool. Physicians record stenosis presence in four major coronary vessels and rate diagnostic confidence using a four-category confidence rating: very high, high, moderate and low. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Adults aged 18 years or older Patients presenting to the emergency department with acute chest pain or chest discomfort Patients assessed as intermediate risk (Heart Score 4-6) Patients for whom CCTA was ordered by the treating physician as part of routine clinical care
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Prior history of coronary revascularization (coronary artery bypass graft surgery or stent placement) Presence of intracardiac metallic devices such as pacemaker or prosthetic heart valves Contraindications to contrast media (e.g., contrast allergy, severe renal impairment with eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m²) Patients unable to cooperate (e.g., severe anxiety, non-cooperation) Non-diagnostic CCTA images are identified after image acquisition and handled according to the protocol-defined analysis exclusions.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Angiomics AI-based Coronary CT Interpretation ToolAI software integrated with the hospital PACS system to assist emergency physicians in interpreting coronary CT angiography (CCTA). The tool automatically analyzes stenosis in the left main, LAD, LCX, and RCA, and physicians use the results to guide their interpretation. | Device | AI-assisted CCTA interpretation |
| Standard CCTA Interpretation without AIEmergency physicians independently interpret coronary CT angiography (CCTA) without access to the AI tool. Physicians evaluate stenosis in the left main, LAD, LCX, and RCA, and report diagnostic confidence using a four-category confidence rating: very high, high, moderate and low. | Other | Standard CCTA interpretation (without AI) |
Primary outcome
Per-patient negative predictive value of emergency physician CCTA interpretation
Time frame: During the initial emergency department visit, at the time of index CCTA interpretation.
Negative predictive value is the number of true-negative patients divided by all patients classified as negative by the emergency physician, using blinded expert radiologist consensus as the reference standard. Significant coronary stenosis is defined as ≥50% luminal narrowing. A patient is classified as positive if at least one of the four major coronary vessels (LM, LAD, LCx or RCA) is positive, and as negative if all four vessels are negative. Negative predictive value is compared between the AI-assisted and standard interpretation groups.
4 secondary outcomes
Per-patient diagnostic performance
Time frame: During the initial emergency department visit, at the time of index CCTA interpretation.
Per-vessel diagnostic performance
Time frame: During the initial emergency department visit, at the time of index CCTA interpretation.
Emergency physician diagnostic confidence
Time frame: At completion of the emergency physician's index CCTA interpretation during the initial emergency department visit.
Protocol deviation rate
Time frame: During the initial emergency department episode.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 5 Nov 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. Requests for de-identified individual participant data, a data dictionary and analysis code will be considered after publication of the primary results. Access is subject to IRB approval and applicable confidentiality requirements.
Related trials for Chest Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Warm Footbath Combined With Relaxation Exercise on Pain and Anxiety During Chest Tube Removal After Cardiac Surgery
Chest Tube Removal
Not yet recruiting
Lung Cancer and Aging: Improving Well-being for Older Adults With Lung Cancer
Lung Cancer
Recruiting
CT Stress Myocardial Perfusion, Fractional Flow Reserve and Angiography in Patients With Stable Chest Pain Syndromes
Coronary Artery Disease, Chest Syndrome
RecruitingPhase 4
Early Single Antiplatelet Therapy After IVUS-Guided PCI in Acute Coronary Syndrome
Acute Coronary Syndromes, STEMI
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Methadone Versus Standard of Care for Pain Control in Minimally Invasive Lung Resection Surgery
Pain Management
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Angiomics AI-based Coronary CT Interpretation Tool and Standard CCTA Interpretation without AI in people with Chest Pain and Acute Coronary Syndrome, run by Yonsei University at 1 site in South Korea.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 5 Nov 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in South Korea. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact arom choi, MD (+82-2-2228-2465, aromchoi@yuhs.ac), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Per-patient negative predictive value of emergency physician CCTA interpretation (time frame: During the initial emergency department visit, at the time of index CCTA interpretation.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 5 Nov 2026.