ArticleCureus2021
Measurement of Aortic Atherosclerotic Disease Severity: A Novel Tool for Simplified, Objective Disease Scoring Using CT Angiography.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abdominal vascular calcification at CT: opportunistic quantification and imaging-based risk stratification.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Vascular Calcification Patterns in the Elderly: Correlation Between Aortic and Iliac Calcification Burden.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Reduced Circulating α-Klotho Levels Are Associated With Elevated Mortality and Arterial Calcifications of Aorta and Iliac Arteries.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Quantification of abdominal aortic calcification using photon-counting CT angiography: an imaging biomarker for high-risk cardiovascular patients.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Article
- Ultra-low-dose non-contrast CT and CT angiography can be used interchangeably for assessing maximal abdominal aortic diameter.Acta radiologica open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Vascular calcification is a recognized indicator of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Calcium scoring is a widely used tool to measure coronary artery calcification, however has limitations for use elsewhere in the body. There is currently no gold standard for quantifying abdominal aortic calcification (AAC). We propose a simple and reproducible method to assess the severity of AAC using multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) in CT angiograms (CTA). Methods A retrospective analysis of CTAs from 75 patients over two years was performed. Using a novel six-point scoring system, three radiologists independently scored the severity of AAC in the distal abdominal aorta. Interclass correlation (ICC) was used to assess the degree of agreement between the three raters. Calcium scoring of the same region was also calculated for each patient. We used Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to compare the CT calcium score with the corresponding average rater's atheroma score. Results There was significant agreement between raters' scores, with an ICC value = 0.972, 95% (CI 0.959-0.981, p < 0.0001). There was also a strong correlation between an average rater's atheroma score with the corresponding CT calcium score, rho = 0.85 (p < 0.0001). Conclusion The results show excellent reproducibility of scores between radiologists, as well as a strong correlation between this novel scoring tool and calcium scores, indicating that it is a reliable method for the grading of AAC. We propose that this simple semi-quantitative method could form a widely used system for AAC disease stratification.
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.