ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2026
Prediction and critical feature analysis for coronary artery calcification progression.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coronary calcification is a prevalent pathology and strong cardiovascular indicator. However, its progression drivers remain poorly defined. With limited clinical samples, it is unclear if simple traditional machine learning can effectively predict progression, challenging risk assessment and individualized treatment. We assembled a serial CCTA dataset of 2,579 patients from West China Hospital. Using Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Decision Trees, XGBoost, and Logistic Regression with SHAP analysis, we identified key features of coronary artery calcification progression and built predictive models, then compared them with traditional clinical models. The Random Forest (RF) model achieved an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.84) vs. 0.64 (0.59-0.68) for the traditional model. Baseline CACS, plaque burden, and other CCTA features were key predictors, with critical thresholds determined. A coronary artery calcification progression prediction score (CACPPS) was derived to quantify personalized progression risk. The RF model also showed acceptable calibration (Brier score = 0.169; Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.415), favorable decision-curve net benefit, and an optimal CACPPS threshold of 0.566. In patients with suspected or confirmed CAD, a traditional yet interpretable machine learning model can predict CACS progression and generate CACPPS to support treatment decisions and dynamic individualized management, mitigating black-box concerns through indirect interpretability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42543454What 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.