ERRATUM TO: J NUCL CARDIOL DOI 10.1007/s12350-017-0866-3
Regrettably an error was introduced in Table 3 during the article’s production. The very first cell (row: Very low 0; column: Very low) should read ‘12’ and not ‘21’ as originally published. The corrected Table 3 appears below.
Table 3.
Manual CAC scoring in CSCT vs (a) manual and (b) automatic CAC scoring in CTAC at rest
| Very low | Low | Intermediate | High | Very high | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Very low 0 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Low 1–10 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Intermediate 11–100 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 0 |
| High 101–400 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 25 | 7 |
| Very high >400 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 55 |
| Very low | Low | Intermediate | High | Very high | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Very low 0 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Low 1–10 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Intermediate 11–100 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0 |
| High 101–400 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 22 | 9 |
| Very high >400 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 53 |
Cardiovascular risk categories based on the Agatston score (0, 1-10, 11-100, 101-400, >400) assigned to a patient by the manual scoring in CSCT (rows) and (a) manual and (b) automatic scoring in CTAC scans acquired at rest (columns) taking different ranges of Agatston scores between CSCT and CTAC scan into account
Footnotes
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s12350-017-0866-3.