Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 722

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CT image visual quantitative evaluation and clinical classification of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

Open access
Li, Kunwei, Fang, Yijie, Li, Wenjuan, Pan, Cunxue, Qin, Peixin, Zhong, Yinghua, Liu, Xueguo, Huang, Mingqian, Liao, Yuting, Li, Shaolin·2020·European Radiology
DOI 10.1007/s00330-020-06817-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives To explore the relationship between the imaging manifestations and clinical classification of COVID-19. Methods We conducted a retrospective single-center study on patients with COVID-19 from Jan. 18, 2020 to Feb. 7, 2020 in Zhuhai, China. Patients were divided into 3 types based on Chinese guideline: mild (patients with minimal symptoms and negative CT findings), common, and severe-critical (patients with positive CT findings and different extent of clinical manifestations). CT visual quantitative evaluation was based on summing up the acute lung inflammatory lesions involving each lobe, which was scored as 0 (0%), 1 (1–25%), 2 (26–50%), 3 (51–75%), or 4 (76–100%), respectively. The total severity score (TSS) was reached by summing the five lobe scores. The consistency of two observers was evaluated. The TSS was compared with the clinical classification. ROC was used to test the diagnosis ability of TSS for severe-critical type. Results This study included 78 patients, 38 males and 40 females. There were 24 mild (30.8%), 46 common (59.0%), and 8 severe-critical (10.2%) cases, respectively. The median TSS of severe-critical-type group was significantly higher than common type ( p < 0.001). The ICC value of the two observers was 0.976 (95% CI 0.962–0.985). ROC analysis showed the area under the curve (AUC) of TSS for diagnosing severe-critical type was 0.918. The TSS cutoff of 7.5 had 82.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Conclusions The proportion of clinical mild-type patients with COVID-19 was relatively high; CT was not suitable for independent screening tool. The CT visual quantitative analysis has high consistency and can reflect the clinical classification of COVID-19. Key Points • CT visual quantitative evaluation has high consistency (ICC value of 0.976) among the observers. The median TSS of severe-critical type group was significantly higher than common type ( p < 0.001). • ROC analysis showed the area under the curve (AUC) of TSS for diagnosing severe-critical type was 0.918 (95% CI 0.843–0.994). The TSS cutoff of 7.5 had 82.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity. • The proportion of confirmed COVID-19 patients with normal chest CT was relatively high (30.8%); CT was not a suitable screening modality

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00330-020-06817-6

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 722

Metadata

Authors
Li, K., Fang, Y., Li, W., Pan, C., Qin, P., Zhong, Y., Liu, X., Huang, M., Liao, Y., & Li, S.
Venue
European Radiology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-03-25
Volume
30
Issue
8
Pages
4407-4416
ISSN
  • 0938-7994 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1084
DOI
10.1007/s00330-020-06817-6
OpenAlex
W3012817089
Cited by
722
References
17
FWCI
19.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: CT image visual quantitative evaluation and clinical classification of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00330-020-06817-6
The paper
Li, K., Fang, Y., Li, W., Pan, C., Qin, P., Zhong, Y., Liu, X., Huang, M., Liao, Y., & Li, S. (2020). CT image visual quantitative evaluation and clinical classification of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). European Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06817-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.