ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2025
Evaluation of coronary artery calcium score by age and sex: a multicenter study.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores in a large Turkish cohort using age- and sex-specific percentiles, and to assess the agreement between CAD-RADS plaque burden scores and percentile-based CAC classification.
methodsA total of 4,887 clinically referred patients who underwent coronary CT angiography (CCTA) with non-contrast imaging were retrospectively evaluated. CAC scores were calculated using the Agatston method. Percentile reference values were generated according to age, sex, and number of cardiovascular risk factors. "Coronary age" was estimated by matching each individual's CAC score to the 50th percentile value. The agreement between CAD-RADS P scores and percentile-based classification was assessed using Cohen's kappa.
resultsAge, male sex, and traditional risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking) were significantly associated with higher CAC scores (p < 0.01). The likelihood of CAC > 0 increased with each additional risk factor. Among individuals with low to intermediate cardiovascular risk, 22.3% had CAC scores above the 75th percentile. ROC analysis showed strong discriminatory ability for risk factor-based prediction of CAC > 0 (AUC = 0.873). However, agreement between CAD-RADS P scores and percentile-based classification was poor (κ = 0.12, p < 0.01).
conclusionAbsolute CAC scores do not reliably reflect relative risk in younger or low-risk individuals. Percentile-based interpretation and coronary age estimation offer a more individualized approach, particularly valuable in low-to-intermediate risk populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41201708What 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.