ArticleLa Radiologia medica2025
Aortic valve and coronary artery calcium scoring: impact of half- versus standard-dose protocols.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What you don't see matters: dual-energy CT in emergency radiology.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsCT acquisition parameters and reconstruction techniques may affect the accuracy of calcium scoring measurements with a potential impact on clinical decision making. We evaluated the agreement of half- versus standard-dose protocols for assessment of aortic valve (AVCS HD and AVCS SD protocols) and coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS HD and CACS SD protocols) with and without the application of iterative reconstruction.
methodsWe enrolled 144 consecutive patients (mean age 83 ± 9 years) with known aortic stenosis undergoing 128-row prospective sequential CT with standard (120 kVp/20 mAs) and half-dose (120 kVp/10 mAs) protocols for both AVCS and CACS evaluation. The half-dose dataset was processed with and without iterative reconstruction. Agreement and precision of different protocols were evaluated using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Additionally, we assessed the reclassification of cardiovascular risk based on the Mayo Clinic system and the likelihood of severe aortic stenosis using sex-specific categories.
resultsCompared with the standard dose, the half-dose protocol with or without iterative reconstruction demonstrated optimum agreement for the evaluation of AVCS (r = 0.99; R
conclusionsOur findings suggest that the half-dose protocol with iterative reconstruction provides reliable and accurate results for both AVCS and CACS assessment. This evidence underscores the potential to optimize radiation dose while preserving the precision of diagnostic outcomes, thereby minimally impacting clinical management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40481896What 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.