ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2023
Simplified Approach to Predicting Obstructive Coronary Disease With Integration of Coronary Calcium: Development and External Validation.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hidden risk in normal myocardial perfusion scans: AI-detected proximal coronary calcium on CT attenuation maps improves prognosis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Incremental prognostic value of AI-based coronary CT angiography combined with PET/CT dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with suspected or confirmed coronary artery disease.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- A higher monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio is correlated with impaired glomerular function and adverse cardiac remodeling in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: a retrospective study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Prediction of obstructive coronary artery disease using coronary calcification and epicardial adipose tissue assessments from CT calcium scoring scans.Journal of cardiovascular computed tomographyArticle
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 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Diamond-Forrester model was used extensively to predict obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) but overestimates probability in current populations. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is a useful marker of CAD, which is not routinely integrated with other features. We derived simple likelihood tables, integrating CAC with age, sex, and cardiac chest pain to predict obstructive CAD. METHODS AND
resultsThe training population included patients from 3 multinational sites (n=2055), with 2 sites for external testing (n=3321). We determined associations between age, sex, cardiac chest pain, and CAC with the presence of obstructive CAD, defined as any stenosis ≥50% on coronary computed tomography angiography. Prediction performance was assessed using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and compared with the CAD Consortium models with and without CAC, which require detailed calculations, and the updated Diamond-Forrester model. In external testing, the proposed likelihood tables had higher AUC (0.875 [95% CI, 0.862-0.889]) than the CAD Consortium clinical+CAC score (AUC, 0.868 [95% CI, 0.855-0.881];
conclusionsWe have developed and externally validated simple likelihood tables to integrate CAC with age, sex, and cardiac chest pain, demonstrating improved prediction performance compared with other risk models. Our tool affords physicians with the opportunity to rapidly and easily integrate a small number of important features to estimate a patient's likelihood of obstructive CAD as an aid to clinical management.
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.