Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40126404›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine2025

The Use of Computed Tomography Densitometry for the Assessment of Emphysema in Clinical Trials: A Position Paper from the Fleischner Society.

Raúl San José Estépar, R Graham Barr, Sean B Fain, Philippe A Grenier, Eric A Hoffman, Stephen M Humphries, Miranda Kirby, Nancy Obuchowski, Christopher J Ryerson, Joon Beom Seo and 18 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Opportunistic Screening on Chest CT, From theAJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

28 authors.

Raúl San José EstéparDepartment of Radiology and.ORCID 0000-0002-3677-1996
R Graham BarrDepartment of Medicine and Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Sean B FainDepartment of Radiology, Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Philippe A GrenierDepartment of Clinical Research and Innovation, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.
Eric A HoffmanDepartment of Radiology, Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.ORCID 0000-0001-8456-9437
Stephen M HumphriesDepartment of Radiology, National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado.ORCID 0000-0002-5113-4530
Miranda KirbyDepartment of Physics, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nancy ObuchowskiDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Main Campus, Cleveland, Ohio.
Christopher J RyersonDepartment of Medicine and Centre for Heart Lung Innovation, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Joon Beom SeoDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ruth Tal-SingerGlobal Allergy and Airways Patient Platform, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-5275-8062
Samuel Y AshDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, South Shore Hospital, South Weymouth, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0003-0224-6939
Alexander A BankierDepartment of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Memorial Health and University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts.
James CrapoDepartment of Medicine.
MeiLan K HanDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Liz KellermeyerBiomedical Library, and.
Jonathan GoldinDepartment of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
Cynthia H McColloughDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
John D NewellDepartment of Radiology, Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Bruce E MillerCOPD Foundation, Miami, Florida.
Lars H NordenmarkLate-Stage Development, Respiratory and Immunology, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Oslo, Norway.
Martine Remy-JardinDepartment of Thoracic Imaging, University of Lille, Lille, France.
Mathias ProkopDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Yoshiharu OhnoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan; and.
Edwin K SilvermanDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Charlie StrangeDepartment of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
George R WashkoDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
David A LynchDepartment of Radiology, National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado.

Funding

Pulmonary Toxicology Facility CoreP30ES005605 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Jong Sung Kim · 1990 to 2026
$40.5M
Prognostic Markers of Emphysema ProgressionR01HL149877 · NHLBI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI SAN JOSE ESTEPAR, RAUL · 2020 to 2023
$2.8M
NHLBI NIH HHS 1R01HL149877NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL149877NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES005605
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emphysema's significant morbidity and mortality underscore the need for reliable outcome metrics in clinical trials. However, commonly accepted chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outcome measures do not adequately capture emphysema severity or progression. Computed tomography (CT) metrics have been validated as accurate indicators of pathological emphysema and predictors of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease progression, exacerbations, and mortality. This position paper reviews the evidence supporting CT densitometry as a biomarker for emphysema, establishes implementation standards, and highlights areas for future research. A systematic literature review addressed three key questions: whether CT densitometry can be used as a diagnostic biomarker of emphysema, whether CT densitometry can be used as a prognostic biomarker, and whether longitudinal change in densitometry can be used as a disease progression monitoring biomarker. Emphysema metrics, such as the percentage of low attenuation areas below -950 Hounsfield units, are validated, highly reproducible diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Volume-adjusted lung density is recommended for disease monitoring. Both metrics demonstrate a scan-rescan intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 with proper technique. The paper also discusses relevant CT physics, techniques, and sources of variation, including technical factors, physiological changes, and software analysis. Key recommendations for clinical trials include using standardized CT techniques, proper subject selection, and longitudinal evaluation with volume-adjusted lung density.

Indexed as

DensitometryPulmonary EmphysemaTomography, X-Ray ComputedBiomarkersClinical Trials as TopicDisease ProgressionHumansPrognosisPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness IndexBiomarkersclinical trialscomputed tomographyemphysemalung densitometry

Identifiers

PMID40126404
PMCPMC12091028

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.