ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Developing a calibration method to utilize low-dose chest CT for assessment of coronary artery calcification score.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to develop a calibration approach for low-dose CT (LDCT) used in lung cancer screening to enable coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores that reflect those obtained from conventional electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated calcium scoring CT (CSCT).
methodsAn electron density phantom-based calibration curve was developed to align Hounsfield unit (HU) values measured on LDCT with those from ECG-gated CSCT. To evaluate the efficacy of the proposed method, 139 patients undergoing physical examination who received both LDCT and CSCT on the same day were retrospectively enrolled. Agatston and volume scores were quantified for the right coronary artery, left anterior descending artery, left circumflex artery, and left main artery. The Bland-Altman analysis and two-sample t-test were performed to compare CAC scores measured on CSCT and LDCT before and after HU-based calibration.
resultsCompared with the mean bias observed in Bland-Altman analysis between CSCT and LDCT, the mean bias between CSCT and calibration LDCT (cLDCT) was substantially reduced. Based on two-sample t-test, statistically significant differences in total Agatston scores and total volume scores calculated were observed between CSCT and LDCT for the four coronary arteries. In contrast, no significant differences were found between CSCT and cLDCT. Among patients undergoing diastolic reconstruction in CSCT, the p-values comparing CSCT and cLDCT were 0.94 for the Agatston score and 0.43 for the volume score, whereas corresponding p-values of 0.95 and 0.63 were observed in patients undergoing systolic reconstruction in CSCT.
conclusionThe proposed calibration approach enables consistent HU mapping across protocols and supports simultaneous assessment of coronary calcium burden and pulmonary pathology on a single LDCT scan.
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.