ArticlePloS one2016
Quantification of Calcium Amount in a New Experimental Model: A Comparison between Ultrasound and Computed Tomography.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence-based calcium scoring using 3D transesophageal echocardiography in aortic stenosis: a pilot study.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Pulsed Cavitational Ultrasound Softening: a new non-invasive therapeutic approach of calcified bioprosthetic valve stenosis.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCalcification is an important prognostic factor in aortic valve stenosis. However, there is no ultrasound (US) method available to accurately quantify calcification in this setting to date. We aimed to validate a new US method for measuring the amount of calcium in an in vitro model, and compare it to computed tomography (CT), the current imaging gold standard. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn agar phantom (2% agar) was made, containing 9 different amounts of calcium-hydroxyapatite Ca5(PO4)3OH (2 to 50 mg). The phantoms were imaged with micro-CT and US (10 MHz probe). The calcium area (areacalcium) and its maximum pixel value (PVmax) were obtained. These values were summed to calculate CT and US calcium scores (∑(areacalcium × PVmax)) and volumes (∑areacalcium). Both US- and CT-calcium scores were compared with the calcium amounts, and with each other.
resultsBoth calcium scores correlated significantly with the calcium amount (R2 = 0.9788, p<0.0001 and R2 = 0.8154, p<0.0001 for CT and US respectively). Furthermore, there was a significant correlation between US and CT for calcium volumes (R2 = 0.7392, p<0.0001) and scores (R2 = 0.7391, p<0.0001).
conclusionWe developed a new US method that accurately quantifies the amount of calcium in an in vitro model. Moreover it is strongly correlated with CT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.