Observational studyAtherosclerosis2016
15-Year prognostic utility of coronary artery calcium scoring for all-cause mortality in the elderly.
Observational study in Atherosclerosis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac CT in the Era of Precision Cardiology: From Calcium Scoring to Comprehensive Risk Profiling.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular CT and MR Imaging.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Review
- Implementation of Cholesterol-Lowering Therapy to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk in Persons Living with HIV.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2022Review
- Artificial intelligence in cardiac radiology.La Radiologia medica · 2020Review
- Long-term prognosis and predictors of outcomes after negative stress echocardiography.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2020Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: From Anatomy to Prognosis.BioMed research international · 2020Review
- Role of Coronary Calcium Score to Identify Candidates for ASCVD Prevention.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPrior studies have demonstrated a decline in the predictive ability of conventional risk factors (RF) with advancing age, emphasizing the need for novel tools to improve risk stratification in the elderly. Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is a robust predictor of adverse cardiovascular events, but its long-term prognostic utility beyond RFs in elderly persons is unknown.
methodsA consecutive series of 9715 individuals underwent CAC scoring and were followed for a mean of 14.6 ± 1.1 years. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) was employed to assess the independent relationship of CAC and RFs with all-cause death. The incremental value of CAC, stratified by age, was examined by using an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) and category-free net reclassification improvement (NRI).
resultsOf the overall study sample, 728 (7.5%) adults (mean age 74.2 ± 4.2 years; 55.6% female) were 70 years or older, of which 157 (21.6%) died. The presence of any CAC was associated with a >4-fold (95% CI = 2.84-6.59) adjusted risk of death for those over the age of 70, which was higher compared with younger study counterparts, or other measured RFs. For individuals 70 years or older, the discriminatory ability of CAC improved upon that of RFs alone (C statistics 0.764 vs. 0.675, P < 0.001). CAC also enabled improved reclassification (category-free NRI = 84%, P < 0.001) when added to RFs.
conclusionIn a large-scale observational cohort registry, CAC improves prediction, discrimination, and reclassification of elderly individuals at risk for future death.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.