Cited by 276Cardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsBone health and osteoporosis research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring

Open access
Blaha, Michael J., Mortensen, Martin Bødtker, Kianoush, Sina, Tota-Maharaj, Rajesh, Cainzos-Achirica, Miguel·2017·JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging

Abstract

Quantification of coronary artery calcium (CAC) has been shown to be reliable, reproducible, and predictive of cardiovascular risk. Formal CAC scoring was introduced in 1990, with early scoring algorithms notable for their simplicity and elegance. Yet, with little evidence available on how to best build a score, and without a conceptual model guiding score development, these scores were, to a large degree, arbitrary. In this review, we describe the traditional approaches for clinical CAC scoring, noting their strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. We then discuss a conceptual model for developing an improved CAC score, reviewing the evidence supporting approaches most likely to lead to meaningful score improvement (for example, accounting for CAC density and regional distribution). After discussing the potential implementation of an improved score in clinical practice, we follow with a discussion of the future of CAC scoring, asking the central question: do we really need a new CAC score?

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 · 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.05.007

Cites

59 of 59 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 276

Metadata

Authors
Blaha, M. J., Mortensen, M. B., Kianoush, S., Tota-Maharaj, R., & Cainzos-Achirica, M.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Blaha, Michael J.
Venue
JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
10
Issue
8
Pages
923-937
ISSN
  • 1876-7591 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-878X
OpenAlex
W2744127741
Cited by
276
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JACC. Cardiovascular imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Scopus (Elsevier) (submittedVersion)
Funders
American College of Cardiology Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
Keywords
coronary artery calcium scoring, calcium density, cardiovascular risk prediction, coronary artery calcification, coronary artery disease
MeSH terms
Computed Tomography Angiography, Algorithms, Coronary Artery Disease, Coronary Vessels, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Coronary Angiography, Vascular Calcification, Multidetector Computed Tomography

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