Artrya

The algorithm is the product and the company built the business around a single technical bet. Salix is a CCTA image analysis platform where AI identifies and quantifies plaque type and extent, with plaque volume computed by identifying voxels within target Hounsfield Unit ranges spatially located between the lumen and outer vessel wall. The company states the algorithm was built from thousands of scans sourced from medical institutes in the US, Australia and Canada. No hardware line and no services business; notably it uses no external reading teams to validate scan data, so there is no human processing layer beneath the AI. The plaque module reportedly accounts for around 70 percent of projected group revenue.

A on a structural design choice the company states explicitly: Salix uses NO EXTERNAL READING TEAMS to validate cardiac scan data, so physicians retain direct control of AI-supported scans and results return in under 10 minutes. That is the opposite architecture to the analysis-service model, where scans leave the institution for vendor-side processing and return hours later. Removing the human processing layer makes the autonomy claim honest and auditable rather than obscured, and it is the reason the point-of-care timing claim is credible. Use as the contrast against Heartflow and Elucid, both of which involve vendor-side processing steps whose extent is undisclosed.

More mechanically specific than most imaging vendors. The plaque volume computation is described concretely as identifying voxels within target Hounsfield Unit ranges spatially located between the inner lumen and outer vessel wall, and the reported plaque features are enumerated by name including low attenuation plaque, spotty calcification, positive remodeling and napkin-ring sign. Training data provenance is stated at thousands of scans from institutions across the US, Australia and Canada. Graded B rather than A because the proprietary Plaque Dispersion Score, which is the differentiating metric and the subject of the SAPPHIRE study, has no published derivation or validation, and no accuracy figures with stated methodology were located.

The weakest axis and the honest gap in an otherwise strong record. No peer reviewed validation study for Salix was located. The SAPPHIRE study is the evidence programme, but it is prospective in the sense of not yet reporting: announced in 2025, expected to commence early in calendar 2026, structured as a retrospective multi-centre real-world study in three phases across six US health systems including Piedmont Healthcare. Broker commentary refers to an earlier Australian study with positive results that SAPPHIRE expands upon, but that study was not located in published form. So the company has a serious evidence plan and named academic partners, and nothing published to grade yet. Contrast Heartflow with 600+ publications and Caristo with a Lancet cohort, both indexed in the same lane. Worth revisiting once SAPPHIRE reports.

Cloud platform processing cardiac imaging, but no published data handling, retention or model training policy was located at the time of review.

No published BAA terms located. Note the company is Australian headquartered with US commercial operations, so both Australian privacy law and US HIPAA obligations apply and neither posture is documented publicly.

No third party security attestation such as SOC 2, ISO 27001 or ISO 13485 was retrieved at the time of review.

Clean, well documented and disciplined about scope, which is what earns the A despite the company being much smaller than its lane competitors. Salix Coronary Anatomy cleared March 2025; Salix Coronary Plaque cleared August 2025 with the 510(k) number publicly identified as K251837 and the FDA summary document available, which is more specific than most vendors in this index provide; Salix Coronary Flow explicitly described as completed and undergoing clinical data validation ahead of a future 510(k) submission, not as available. Naming which module holds which clearance and stating plainly that the third is not yet submitted is the same disclosure discipline that earned Milvue credit. Note for completeness that a Nature Reviews Cardiology benchmarking publication listed Artrya Salix Coronary Plaque as Research Use Only version 1.0 at the time of that analysis, which predates the August 2025 clearance.

Better than the imaging lane norm for a specific and creditable reason: the SAPPHIRE study is designed with an explicit focus on coronary artery disease in WOMEN, and the company states the rationale, that a large majority of women who die from coronary artery disease showed no prior symptoms. Sex differences in coronary disease presentation are among the best documented disparities in cardiology and are routinely ignored by imaging AI vendors. Designing the flagship evidence programme around that gap is a substantive governance choice rather than a policy statement. Graded B rather than A because no subgroup performance data exists yet, the study has not reported, and no analysis by race, ethnicity or body habitus was located. Compare Cognivue's FOCUS study, which is the benchmark because it reported.

Modules share a single user interface, so the plaque capability was enabled inside the already-deployed anatomy platform immediately on clearance with no separate integration project, which is a real deployment advantage of the modular design. Full integration reported across five Tanner Health hospitals. Graded B rather than A because no named PACS, RIS or EHR integrations were disclosed and the interoperability claim rests on internal platform coherence rather than documented third party interfaces.

Cloud platform delivering point-of-care results in under 10 minutes without requiring clinicians to change or use multiple systems. The absence of external reading teams means no queue behind the analysis, which is what makes near real-time credible. Graded B rather than A because it is cloud-only with no on-premise option located, patient imaging necessarily leaves the institution, and no data residency terms were published despite the company operating across Australian and US jurisdictions.

The most legible commercial model in the cardiovascular CT lane and among the clearest in the index, largely because ASX listing forces disclosure. The company states its pricing basis directly as a fee per scan assessed, reports that scan volumes at Tanner Health are generating fee-per-scan revenue, and quantifies the reimbursement environment precisely: the existing CPT code for automated plaque analysis from CCTA was upgraded to Category I in October 2024 at US$950 per assessment, taking full effect 1 January 2026. It also discloses the commercial dependency plainly, that the plaque module represents roughly 70 percent of projected group revenue. A buyer can determine the pricing mechanism, the reimbursement rate and the vendor's own commercial exposure from public sources, which is rare anywhere in this index.

Narrow and deliberately so: coronary artery disease assessment from CCTA, serving cardiology and cardiac imaging, currently through a small number of named US hospital systems plus Australian operations. Two cleared modules with a third pending. Graded on the same scale as index vendors spanning multiple body systems, and the commercial footprint is materially smaller than Heartflow, Cleerly or Elucid in the same lane.