ArticleAtherosclerosis plus2024
Coronary artery calcification score and 19 biomarkers on cardiovascular events; a 10-year follow-up DanRisk substudy.
Article in Atherosclerosis plus, 2024. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The SCORE2 algorithm is recommended to estimate risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Coronary artery calcification (CAC) score is expensive but improves the risk prediction. This study aims to determine and compare the additive value of CAC-score and 19 biomarkers in risk prediction. Methods: Traditional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, CAC-score, and a wide range of biomarkers (including lipids, calcium-phosphate metabolism, troponin, inflammation, kidney function and ankle brachial index (ABI)) were collected from 1211 randomly selected middle-aged men and women in this multicenter prospective cohort in 2009-2010. 10-year follow-up data on CV-events were obtained via the Danish Health Registries. CV-event was defined as stroke, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, coronary artery revascularization or death from CVD. The association between SCORE2, CAC-score, biomarkers, and CV-events was assessed using cox proportional hazard rates (HR) and compared using AUC-calculation of ROC-curves. Finally, net reclassification improvement (NRI) was calculated. Results: 92 participants had CV-events. Adjusted for risk factors, CAC-score was significantly associated with events (adjusted HR 1.9 (95%CI:1.1; 3.3), 3.6 (95%CI:1.9; 6.8), and 5. (95%CI:2.6; 10.3) for CAC-score 1-99, CAC-score 100-399 and CAC-score ≥400, respectively. HR for the highest quartile of CRP was 2.3 (95%CI:1.2; 4.5), while none of the remaining biomarkers improved HR. Adjusted for SCORE2, the CAC-score improved AUC (AUC Conclusion: CAC-score improved prediction of CV-events, however the selected biomarkers did not.
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.