ArticleScientific reports2022
Progostic value of coronary artery calcium scores from 1.5 mm slice reconstructions of electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography scans in asymptomatic individuals.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agatston-2.0: A next-generation AI-based coronary calcium quantification approach to improve risk stratification among individuals with zero Agatston scores - Part I: An AI-CVD Study within the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Framingham Heart Study.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Plaque Characteristics Derived from Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography That Predict Cardiovascular Death.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Influence of computed tomography slice thickness on deep learning-based, automatic coronary artery calcium scoring software performance.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
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
It is unknown whether the thinner slice reconstruction has added value relative to 3 mm reconstructions in predicting major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). This retrospective study included 550 asymptomatic individuals who underwent cardiac CT. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores and severity categories were assessed from 1.5 and 3 mm scans. CAC scores obtained from 1.5 and 3 mm scans were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Cox proportional hazard models were developed to predict MACEs based on the degree of coronary artery stenosis on coronary CT angiography and the presence of CAC on both scans. Model performances were compared using the time-dependent ROC curve and integrated area under the curve (iAUC) methods. The CAC scores obtained from 1.5 mm scans were significantly higher than those from 3 mm scans (median, interquartile range 4.5[0-71] vs. 0[0-48.4]; p < 0.001). Models showed no difference in predictive accuracy of the presence of CAC between 1.5 and 3 mm scans (iAUC, 0.625 vs. 0.672). In conclusion, CAC scores obtained from 1.5 mm scans are significantly higher than those from 3 mm scans, but do not provide added prognostic value relative to 3 mm scans.
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.