ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Quantifying the impact of slice thickness on cardiovascular risk stratification in lung cancer screening: a multi-center "RESCUE" study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients undergoing routine non-gated chest computed tomography (CT) for health checkups or atypical chest discomfort often present with a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score of zero on standard 5.0 mm reconstructions. We hypothesized that these thick slices obscure mild calcification due to partial volume effects (PVEs), which could be recovered by retrospective analysis of native thin-slice images. This study aimed to quantify the rate of unrecognized coronary calcification on standard thick-slice CT by comparing paired thin- and thick-slice reconstructions. Methods: We analyzed data of 2,914 patients across four datasets: Stanford Coronary Calcium and chest CT's (COCA) (n=651) for reference validation; an internal cohort evaluated by invasive angiography for early-onset coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=766) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) (n=852) with paired thin (1.0-2.0 mm) Results: In the internal cohort, 19.0% were reclassified from CAC =0 on 5.0 mm scans to CAC >0 on 1.0 mm scans. Similarly, 10.2% of NLST participants were reclassified using 2.0 mm scans. Most reclassified patients (91-99%) fell into the mild risk category (Agatston 1-99). Crucially, 31% of symptomatic patients with CAC =0 on standard scans had obstructive CAD (>50% stenosis); many were "rescued" to a positive CAC status by thin-slice analysis. Risk categorization showed strong agreement (weighted kappa 0.705-0.816). Artificial intelligence (AI) correlated strongly with expert annotations (r=0.956). Conclusions: Standard 5 mm reconstructions cause significant false negative CAC assessments. Analyzing routinely available thin slice reconstructions improves sensitivity for early subclinical atherosclerosis without additional radiation, supporting their use in opportunistic screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.