HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rumberger, J. A. Articles by Kaufman, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rumberger, J. A. Articles by Kaufman, L. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

A Rosetta Stone for Coronary Calcium Risk Stratification: Agatston, Volume, and Mass Scores in 11,490 Individuals

¹ The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.
² AccuImage Diagnostics Corporation, 400 Grandview Dr., South San Francisco, CA 94080.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. —Chart shows age distribution for men (black bars) and women (white bars) of patients in this study. There were 11,490 patients, 63% male.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. —Graph shows comparison of results for 75th percentile range for men and women as reported in Hoff et al. [10] (Kondos database).

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. —Graph shows Agatston scores for men.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. —Graph shows volume scores for men.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. —Graph shows mass scores (bone ash equivalent) for men.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. —Graph shows Agatston scores for women.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. —Graph shows volume scores for women.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. —Graph shows mass scores (bone ash equivalent) for women.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. —Graph shows reproducibility of three scoring methods in 35 patients. Approximately 50% of all nonzero scores fall within 25% reproducibility. Mean is 38% for all three methods. There is no significant difference among them. Black bars = Agatston score, white bars = volume score, gray bars = mass score.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. —Graph shows comparison of volume and mass scores in phantom consisting of five aluminum wires with diameters between 0.3 and 3.2 mm for two scanners with spatial resolution of 1.02 and 1.54 mm full-width at half-maximum. At resolution of 1.5 mm, smallest wire falls below detection threshold.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 11. —Graph shows (for data in Fig.10) percentage of deviation from known volume for same scanners.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati