ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2026
Visual coronary calcium scoring to support opportunistic CAD screening: comparative evaluation of three established systems and introduction of a novel scoring system.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring is an established marker of atherosclerotic burden and cardiovascular risk. While the Agatston score is the clinical gold standard, alternative visual scoring methods-including the Visual Ordinal Score, Weston Score, and Vessel-specific extent-based score-are increasingly used, particularly in non-gated or opportunistic CT imaging. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance, inter-observer reliability, and correlation of different visual scoring methods against the Agatston score. Methods: A total of 299 cases were evaluated using ECG-gated CT scans. Each case was independently scored in a blinded fashion by two observers using three visual methods: (1) Visual Ordinal Score (VS), (2) Weston Score (WS) and (3) Vessel-specific extent-based score (VSES). A novel visual CAC score was derived by combining Weston and Vessel-specific extent-based scoring (= Weston Extent Score, WES). Cohen's Kappa and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were used for inter-observer agreement. Classification performance was assessed against Agatston-based categories (No CAC, Mild, Moderate, Severe), including accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and specificity. Correlation analyses were conducted using Pearson and Spearman coefficients. Results: All scoring methods showed high correlation with the Agatston score (Spearman ρ > 0.87; p < 0.001). Visual scoring demonstrated the highest inter-observer agreement (Kappa = 0.94, ICC = 0.97), followed by Weston (Kappa = 0.90) and Vessel-Specific scores (Kappa = 0.77). Visual scoring also yielded the highest accuracy (Observer 1: 91.3 %, Observer 2: 90.0 %) The newly derived WES score achieved 80.9 % accuracy, with macro-averaged specificity of 93.8 % and improving diagnostic accuracy compared to WS and VSES. Discussion: Different visual scoring offers excellent reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy for CAC classification, with strong correlation to the Agatston score. The newly-derived WES score could be useful in providing a practical balance regarding volumetric information (CAC densitiy) and anatomical distribution of CAC. These findings support the implementation of structured visual CAC scoring in clinical and opportunistic CT settings.
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.