ArticlePloS one2024
Prediction model for recommending coronary artery calcium score screening (CAC-prob) in cardiology outpatient units: A development study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methodological and applicability pitfalls of clinical prediction models for asthma diagnosis: a systematic review and critical appraisal of evidence.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Performance of CAC-prob in predicting coronary artery calcium score: an external validation study in a high-CAC burden population.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Correlations Between Coronary Artery Calcium Scores and Vitamin A, the Triglyceride/High-Density Lipoprotein Ratio, and Glycated Hemoglobin in At-Risk Individuals in Saudi Arabia: A Comprehensive Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of the ADMIRE reconstruction algorithm combined with the Sa36 kernel on quantitative measurement of coronary artery calcification in AI: a single-arm prospective study.Polish journal of radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the well-established significance of the CAC score as a cardiovascular risk marker, the timing of using CAC score in routine clinical practice remains unclear. We aim to develop a prediction model for patients visiting outpatient cardiology units, which can recommend whether CAC score screening is necessary. A prediction model using retrospective cross-sectional design was conducted. Patients who underwent CAC score screening were included. Eight candidate predictors were preselected, including age, gender, DM or primary hypertension, angina chest pain, LDL-C (≥130 mg/dl), presence of low HDL-C, triglyceride (≥150 mg/dl), and eGFR. The outcome of interest was the level of CAC score (CAC score 0, CAC score 1-99, CAC score ≥100). The model was developed using ordinal logistic regression, and model performance was evaluated in terms of discriminative ability and calibration. A total of 360 patients were recruited for analysis, comprising 136 with CAC score 0, 133 with CAC score 1-99, and 111 with CAC score ≥100. The final predictors identified were age, male gender, presence of hypertension or DM, and low HDL-C. The model demonstrated excellent discriminative ability (Ordinal C-statistics of 0.81) with visually good agreement on calibration plots. The implementation of this model (CAC-prob) has the potential to enhance precision in recommending CAC screening. However, external validation is necessary to assess its robustness in new patient cohorts.
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.