ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Coronary calcium score and emphysema extent on different CT radiation dose protocols in lung cancer screening.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative and qualitative lung parameters in photon-counting CT: comparison of ultra-low-dose with standard low-dose protocols.European radiology · 2026Article
- Clinical implications of coronary artery calcification in lung cancer screening populations with interstitial lung abnormalities: a retrospective cohort study.European radiology · 2026Article
- Exploring the prevalence and clinical impact of carotid plaque burden by Doppler ultrasound in lung cancer screening participants with limited coronary artery calcification.European radiology · 2026Article
- CT acquisition protocols in lung cancer screening: implications for guideline development from a worldwide survey.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the consistency of automated measurements of coronary artery calcification (CAC) burden and emphysema extent on computed tomography (CT) images acquired with different radiation dose protocols in a lung cancer screening (LCS) population. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe patient cohort comprised 361 consecutive screenees who underwent a low-dose CT (LDCT) scan and an ultra-low-dose CT (ULDCT) scan at an incident screening round. Exclusion criteria for CAC measurements were software failure and previous history of CVD, including coronary stenting, whereas for emphysema assessment, software failure only. CT images were retrospectively analyzed by a fully automated AI software for CAC scoring, using three predefined Agatston score categories (0-99, 100-399, and ≥ 400), and emphysema quantification, using the percentage of low attenuation areas (%LAA). Demographic and clinical data were obtained from the written questionnaire completed by each participant at the first visit. Agreement for CAC and %LAA categories was measured by the k-Cohen Index with Fleiss-Cohen weights (K
resultsAn overlap of CAC strata was observed in 275/327 (84%) volunteers, with an almost perfect agreement (K
conclusionAutomated CAC quantification on ULDCT seems feasible, showing similar results to those obtained on LDCT, while the quantification of emphysema tended to be overestimated on ULDCT images. KEY POINTS: Question Evidence demonstrating that coronary artery calcification and emphysema can be automatedly quantified on ultra-low-dose chest CT is still awaited. Findings Coronary artery calcification and emphysema measurements were similar among different CT radiation dose protocols; their automated quantification is feasible on ultra-low-dose CT. Clinical relevance Ultra-low-dose CT-based LCS might offer an opportunity to improve the secondary prevention of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases through automated quantification of both CAC burden and emphysema extent.
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.