↓ Skip to main content

Radiation dose reduction for coronary artery calcium scoring at 320-detector CT with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Radiation dose reduction for coronary artery calcium scoring at 320-detector CT with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, March 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10554-015-0637-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fuminari Tatsugami, Toru Higaki, Wataru Fukumoto, Yoko Kaichi, Chikako Fujioka, Masao Kiguchi, Hideya Yamamoto, Yasuki Kihara, Kazuo Awai

Abstract

To assess the possibility of reducing the radiation dose for coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring by using adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) on a 320-detector CT scanner. Fifty-four patients underwent routine- and low-dose CT for CAC scoring. Low-dose CT was performed at one-third of the tube current used for routine-dose CT. Routine-dose CT was reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and low-dose CT was reconstructed with AIDR 3D. We compared the calculated Agatston-, volume-, and mass scores of these images. The overall percentage difference in the Agatston-, volume-, and mass scores between routine- and low-dose CT studies was 15.9, 11.6, and 12.6 %, respectively. There were no significant differences in the routine- and low-dose CT studies irrespective of the scoring algorithms applied. The CAC measurements of both imaging modalities were highly correlated with respect to the Agatston- (r = 0.996), volume- (r = 0.996), and mass score (r = 0.997; p < 0.001, all); the Bland-Altman limits of agreement scores were -37.4 to 51.4, -31.2 to 36.4 and -30.3 to 40.9 %, respectively, suggesting that AIDR 3D was a good alternative for FBP. The mean effective radiation dose for routine- and low-dose CT was 2.2 and 0.7 mSv, respectively. The use of AIDR 3D made it possible to reduce the radiation dose by 67 % for CAC scoring without impairing the quantification of coronary calcification.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 27%
Researcher 8 22%
Other 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Computer Science 3 8%
Physics and Astronomy 3 8%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 8 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 March 2015.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#1,460
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,570
of 274,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#32
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 274,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.