ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Mammographic Vascular Microcalcifications as a Surrogate Parameter for Coronary Heart Disease: Correlation to Cardiac Computer Tomography and Proposal of a Classification Score.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- Review of breast arterial calcifications for cardiovascular disease risk prediction.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Review
- Mammographic Calcifications in Lung Transplant Recipients: Prevalence and Evolution.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Relationship between the prevalence of breast arterial calcifications on mammography and coronary calcifications on Chest CT: A cross-sectional study.Saudi medical journal · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study develops a BI-RADS-like scoring system for vascular microcalcifications in mammographies, correlating breast arterial calcification (BAC) in a mammography with coronary artery calcification (CAC), and specifying differences between microcalcifications caused by BAC and microcalcifications potentially associated with malignant disease. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective single-center cohort study evaluated 124 consecutive female patients (with a median age of 57 years). The presence of CAC was evaluated based on the Agatston score obtained from non-enhanced coronary computed tomography, and the calcifications detected in the mammography were graded on a four-point Likert scale, with the following criteria: (1) no visible or sporadically scattered microcalcifications, (2) suspicious microcalcification not distinguishable from breast arterial calcification, (3) minor breast artery calcifications, and (4) major breast artery calcifications. Inter-rater agreement was assessed in three readers using the Fleiss' kappa, and the correlation between CAC and BAC was evaluated using the Spearman's rank-order and by the calculation of sensitivity/specificity.
resultsThe reliability of the visual classification of BAC was high, with an overall Fleiss' kappa for inter-rater agreement of 0.76 (ranging between 0.62 and 0.89 depending on the score). In 15.1% of patients, a BAC score of two was assigned indicating calcifications indistinguishable regarding vascular or malignant origin. In 17.7% of patients, minor or major breast artery calcifications were found (BAC 3-4). BAC was more prevalent among the patients with CAC (
conclusionsThe standardized visual grading of BAC in mammographies on a four-point scale is feasible with substantial interobserver agreement, potentially improving the treatment of patients with suspicious microcalcifications and CAC.
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.