| Title |
Reliability analysis of visual ranking of coronary artery calcification on low-dose CT of the thorax for lung cancer screening: comparison with ECG-gated calcium scoring CT
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10554-014-0507-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yoon Kyung Kim, Yon Mi Sung, So Hyun Cho, Young Nam Park, Hye-Young Choi |
| Abstract |
Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is frequently detected on low-dose CT (LDCT) of the thorax. Concurrent assessment of CAC and lung cancer screening using LDCT is beneficial in terms of cost and radiation dose reduction. The aim of our study was to evaluate the reliability of visual ranking of positive CAC on LDCT compared to Agatston score (AS) on electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated calcium scoring CT. We studied 576 patients who were consecutively registered for health screening and undergoing both LDCT and ECG-gated calcium scoring CT. We excluded subjects with an AS of zero. The final study cohort included 117 patients with CAC (97 men; mean age, 53.4 ± 8.5). AS was used as the gold standard (mean score 166.0; range 0.4-3,719.3). Two board-certified radiologists and two radiology residents participated in an observer performance study. Visual ranking of CAC was performed according to four categories (1-10, 11-100, 101-400, and 401 or higher) for coronary artery disease risk stratification. Weighted kappa statistics were used to measure the degree of reliability on visual ranking of CAC on LDCT. The degree of reliability on visual ranking of CAC on LDCT compared to ECG-gated calcium scoring CT was excellent for board-certified radiologists and good for radiology residents. A high degree of association was observed with 71.6 % of visual rankings in the same category as the Agatston category and 98.9 % varying by no more than one category. Visual ranking of positive CAC on LDCT is reliable for predicting AS rank categorization. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 24% |
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 56% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 17 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2014.
All research outputs
#8,261,756
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#307
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,551
of 241,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#6
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 241,128 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.