ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Coronary artery calcium scoring using virtual vs. true non-contrast images from ultra-high-resolution and normal-resolution photon-counting coronary CT angiography.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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
Objective: To validate the reliability of Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring (CACS) by using virtual non-contrast (VNC) images reconstructed from contrast-enhanced photon-counting coronary CT angiography (CCTA) versus true non-contrast (TNC) images, and to assess the impact on plaque burden classification. Materials and methods: 239 patients who underwent contrast-enhanced photon-counting CCTA with TNC imaging were included. Agatston score was calculated on both (VNC and TNC) datasets. Scores ≤ 0.9 were rounded to 0. Patients were divided into plaque groups according to the CAD-RADS 2.0 classification system. Borderline cases (P0 vs. P1) were reassessed by two radiologists with blinded adjudication. Results: Median Agatston scores showed no significant difference (TNC: 14.2 [range: 0.0-2951.2] vs. VNC: 8.0 [range: 0.0-3069.3]; Conclusion: Agatston scores derived from TNC and VNC images show no significant differences and excellent consistency. However, the agreement for plaque classification is limited, preventing VNC images from directly substituting for TNC images for this purpose. While a subjective reading significantly improved agreement, further research is required before clinical implementation.
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.