ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Development and validation of a LASSO-selected machine learning prediction pipeline for predicting coronary artery calcification in a health check-up population.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronary artery calcification (CAC) screening in young, asymptomatic populations is clinically valuable but constrained by CT radiation and cost. We developed and calibrated a parsimonious, interpretable machine learning model using routine health check-up variables to identify CAC-positive individuals suitable for early preventive lifestyle counseling. Methods: A total of 4,465 participants were randomly divided into a training set ( Results: LASSO selected 13 predictors: sex, age, pulse, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), serum creatinine (Scr), serum uric acid (SUA), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), smoking, and drinking. The final model achieved an AUC of 0.816 in the training set and 0.771 (95% CI, 0.713-0.824) in the testing set. At the optimal classification threshold, the testing-set sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, NPV, F1 score, Brier score, and AUPRC were 0.726, 0.689, 0.691, 0.102, 0.981, 0.179, 0.042, and 0.147, respectively. Calibration was acceptable in both cohorts. DCA suggested positive net benefit within a low threshold probability range relevant to preventive counseling and further cardiovascular risk assessment. SHAP analysis identified age, sex, hypertension, pulse, and NAFLD as the most influential predictors. Conclusions: The LASSO-selected and calibrated logistic regression model demonstrated acceptable discrimination and calibration for CAC positivity in an internally validated health check-up cohort. Its potential use should be interpreted as preliminary risk stratification rather than clinical implementation, and independent multicenter external validation is required before the model can be recommended for routine clinical use.
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.