ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Quantification of Abdominal Aortic Calcification on CT: Clinical Validation for Assessment Of Cardiovascular Risk in Oncology.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-cancer mortality (NCM) accounts for a substantial proportion of deaths in cancer survivors, with cardiovascular disease (CVD) being the leading cause. Abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) is a strong predictor of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality but remains underused due to the burden of manual scoring. Automated pipelines could enable opportunistic CVD risk screening from routine oncology CTs. We benchmarked three widely available AAC tools against manual reference standards in a multi-institutional prostate cancer cohort. We retrospectively analysed staging CTs from 99 men in the control arm of the STAMPEDE trial. Manual AAC was quantified using adaptive thresholding and Agatston scoring. Automated AAC scoring was performed using OSCAR (institutional agreement), Comp2Comp (open-source), and DAFS (commercial licence). Agreement with manual reference was assessed using Pearson correlation (r), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman analyses, and categorical risk concordance (Cohen's κ). Manual scoring was highly reproducible (ICC = 0.99) but required > 12 min per scan. Automated pipelines reduced processing to < 5 min. OSCAR achieved the strongest agreement with manual AAC (r = 0.92, κ = 0.93), followed by DAFS (r = 0.88, κ = 0.91) and Comp2Comp (r = 0.75, κ = 0.74). Volumetric measures were reproducible across all tools (r ≥ 0.89). Failure occurred in < 10% of scans, mainly at slice thickness < 1 mm. OSCAR and DAFS were stable across patient and scan factors, whereas Comp2Comp was more sensitive to acquisition parameters. Automated AAC quantification is accurate, reproducible, and significantly faster than manual scoring. These findings support its role in cardiovascular screening for cancer and cancer treatment-related risk in oncology using routine CT scans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41912957What 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.