Rumberger John A, Kaufman Leon
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Sep;181(3):743-8. doi: 10.2214/ajr.181.3.1810743.
We introduce stratification data for three methods (Agatston, volume, mass) obtained from one single patient population.
Measurements in 11,490 individuals scanned from 1999 to 2002 with electron-beam CT were used for this study.
Our Agatston score ranges agree reasonably well with the Kondos values except for measurements in patients at the extreme ages, at which we sampled a wider age range and consequently had different biases of averages. Neither method is preferable because except for a small percentage of individuals near the dividing lines, stratification is the same for the three methods. When we matched them against a known "lesion" phantom, the Agatston and volume scores behave nonlinearly, and the latter grossly overestimates volume. The mass method is linear except for lesions near the edge of detectability and matches known volumes to within a small percentage.
We provide validated risk stratification data for use with mass scoring methods.
我们介绍从单一患者群体获得的三种方法（阿加斯顿法、容积法、质量法）的分层数据。
本研究使用了1999年至2002年期间用电子束CT扫描的11490名个体的测量数据。
我们的阿加斯顿评分范围与康多斯值相当吻合，但极端年龄患者的测量值除外，在这些极端年龄患者中，我们采样的年龄范围更广，因此平均偏差不同。两种方法都不是更可取的，因为除了靠近分界线的一小部分个体外，三种方法的分层是相同的。当我们将它们与已知的“病变”模型进行匹配时，阿加斯顿评分和容积评分表现出非线性，且后者严重高估了容积。质量法除了在可检测边缘附近的病变外是线性的，并且与已知容积的匹配误差在小百分比范围内。
我们提供了经过验证的风险分层数据，用于质量评分方法。
