The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Coronary artery disease: improved reproducibility of calcium scoring with an electron-beam CT volumetric method.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the variability and reproducibility of a volumetric calcium score calculated with electron-bean computed tomographic (CT) scans of coronary arteries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two sets of electron-beam CT scans were obtained in patients with coronary calcification (group A) or known risk factors for coronary arterial disease (group B). The second set or scans was obtained after a brief interval (group A, n = 52) or after 1 year with no risk modification (group B, n = 27). Traditional (plaque area and attenuation) and volumetric calcium scores were calculated for each patient and lesion. RESULTS: The median percentage change for individual lesions in group A was 13% for the volumetric and 19% for the traditional score. The overall reduction in error with the volumetric score was 40% (P < .001). The median percentage change for group A patient totals was 9% for the volumetric and 15% for the traditional score (P < .001). In group B patients, the median volumetric score increased by 44% after 1 year. CONCLUSION: The volumetric score showed better reproducibility than the traditional score, and its variability was considerably less than the score increase in untreated patients after 1 year. The reproducibility of the volumetric method makes it useful for assessing the progression of coronary arterial disease on serial electron-beam CT studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography
Agatston, A. S., Janowitz, W. R., Hildner, F. J., Zusmer, N. R., Viamonte, M., & Detrano, R. (1990) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/0735-1097(90)90282-t · Cited by 7,786
Cited by
European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012)
Authors/Task Force Members:, Perk, J., De Backer, G., Gohlke, H., Graham, I., Reiner, Ž., Verschuren, M., Albus, C., Benlian, P., Boysen, G., et al. (2012) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs092 · Cited by 8,490
Graham (2007) · doi:10.1097/01.hjr.0000277983.23934.c9 · Cited by 1,647
Authors/Task Force Members: Joep Perk (Chairperson) (Sweden)*, G. D. B. (. (2012) · European Journal of Preventive Cardiology · doi:10.1177/2047487312450228 · Cited by 863
SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary computed tomographic angiography
Raff, G. L., Chair, Abidov, A., Achenbach, S., Berman, D. S., Boxt, L. M., Budoff, M. J., Cheng, V., DeFrance, T., Hellinger, J. C., et al. (2009) · Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography · doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2009.01.001 · Cited by 773
Achenbach, S., Ropers, D., Pohle, K., Leber, A., Thilo, C., Knez, A., Menendez, T., Maeffert, R., Kusus, M., Regenfus, M., et al. (2002) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000027567.49283.ff · Cited by 339
Metadata
- Authors
- Callister, T. Q., Cooil, B., Raya, S. P., Lippolis, N. J., Russo, D. J., & Raggi, P.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 1998-09
- Volume
- 208
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 807-814
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2170491971
- Cited by
- 750
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Coronary artery disease: improved reproducibility of calcium scoring with an electron-beam CT volumetric method. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiology.208.3.9722864
- The paper
- Callister, T. Q., Cooil, B., Raya, S. P., Lippolis, N. J., Russo, D. J., & Raggi, P. (1998). Coronary artery disease: improved reproducibility of calcium scoring with an electron-beam CT volumetric method. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.208.3.9722864
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.
