Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30635819›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2019

Coronary artery calcium scoring with photon-counting CT: first in vivo human experience.

Rolf Symons, Veit Sandfort, Marissa Mallek, Stefan Ulzheimer, Amir Pourmorteza

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Cardiac imaging using photon counting CT - benefits, challenges and prospects.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. [A comprehensive review on photon-counting computed tomography: Principles, technical hurdles and analysis of clinical applications].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2023
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Rolf SymonsRadiology and Imaging Sciences - National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7889-6773
Veit SandfortRadiology and Imaging Sciences - National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Marissa MallekRadiology and Imaging Sciences - National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Stefan UlzheimerSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Forchheim, Germany.
Amir PourmortezaRadiology and Imaging Sciences - National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA. amir.pourmorteza@emory.edu.
National Institutes of Health Clinical Center · USEmory Healthcare · USSiemens Healthineers (Germany) · DE

Funding

Molecular Biomedical Imaging Laboratory (NIBIB)ZIAEB000072 · NIBIB · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING · PI BLUEMKE, DAVID · 2010 to 2017
$5.0M
Molecular Biomedical Imaging Laboratory (CC)ZIACL090019 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI JONES, ELIZABETH C. · 2010 to 2017
$0k
NIH intramural research program ZIACL090019NIH intramural research program ZIAEB000072
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate the performance of photon-counting detector (PCD) computed tomography (CT) for coronary artery calcium (CAC) score imaging at standard and reduced radiation doses compared to conventional energy-integrating detector (EID) CT. A dedicated cardiac CT phantom, ten ex vivo human hearts, and ten asymptomatic volunteers underwent matched EID and PCD CT scans at different dose settings without ECG gating. CAC score, contrast, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated in the cardiac CT phantom. CAC score accuracy and reproducibility was assessed in the ex vivo hearts. Standard radiation dose (120 kVp, reference mAs = 80) in vivo CAC scans were compared against dose-reduced CAC scans (75% dose reduction; reference mAs = 20) for image quality and CAC score reproducibility. Interstudy agreement was assessed by using intraclass correlation (ICC), linear regression, and Bland-Altman analysis with 95% confidence interval limits of agreement (LOA). Calcium-soft tissue contrast and CNR were significantly higher for the PCD CAC scans in the cardiac CT phantom (all P < 0.01). Ex vivo hearts: CAC score reproducibility was significantly higher for the PCD scans at the lowest dose setting (50 mAs) (P = 0.002); score accuracy was similar for both detector systems at all dose settings. In vivo scans: the agreement between standard dose and low dose CAC score was significantly better for the PCD than for the EID with narrower LOA in Bland-Altman analysis, linear regression slopes closer to 1 (0.96 vs. 0.84), and higher ICC values (0.98 vs. 0.93, respectively). Phantom and in vivo human studies showed PCD may significantly improve CAC score image quality and/or reduce CAC score radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic image quality.

Indexed as

PhotonsAgedComputed Tomography AngiographyCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary VesselsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhantoms, ImagingPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesRadiation DosageRadiation ExposureReproducibility of ResultsCoronary artery calcium scorePhoton-counting CTRadiation dose reduction

Identifiers

PMID30635819
OpenAlexW2909794873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.