ArticleIrish journal of medical science2025
Role of abdominal aortic calcification score in predicting cardiovascular risk in the general population.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research trends and emerging themes in abdominal aortic calcification: a 2005-2025 bibliometric analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- The cross-sectional association between cardiometabolic index and abdominal aortic calcification in U.S. adults: evidence from NHANES 2013-2014.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAbdominal aortic calcification (AAC) is closely related to cardiovascular disease. Although its clinical significances have primarily been investigated in patients with chronic kidney disease, its association with cardio-cerebrovascular mortality in the general middle-aged and elderly population has not been sufficiently investigated.
aimsTo study the association of AAC and cardio-cerebrovascular mortality in both the entire general middle-aged and elderly populations and age subgroups.
methodsData of participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2014 were analyzed. This study included middle-aged and elderly (≥ 40 years old) individuals who underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The severity of AAC was assessed by an AAC scoring system (AAC score) with a maximum possible value of 24. Participants were tracked for survival status and major cause of death till 31st December 2019. This study utilized AAC score = 6 as the optimal cut-off according to Harrell's c statistic. Based on AAC scores, participants were trichotomized (0, 0-6, and ≥ 6). Groupwise survival curves and cumulative incidence functions were plotted to reveal the association of AAC and cardio-cerebrovascular mortality. Given results under trichotomization, combination of participants with AAC scores 0 and 0-6 was conducted to reaffirm the association of AAC and adverse prognosis.
resultsCorrelation between increased AAC score and poorer survival, higher cumulative incidence of events was revealed. Cox models identified AAC score ≥ 6 as an independent risk factor of cardio-cerebrovascular mortality (AAC score ≥ 6 vs. AAC score = 0: Hazard ratio: 2.38, P = 0.008) after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors. Results remained significant after regrouping (AAC score ≥ 6 vs. AAC score < 6: Hazard ratio: 2.06, P = 0.016). Subgroup analysis provided no evidence of unparallel change in hazard for the same amount of increase in AAC score among middle-aged (40-65 years old) and elderly (≥ 65 years old) individuals.
conclusionsAAC score ≥ 6 independently indicate increased risk of cardio-cerebrovascular death and would be effective in risk stratification among the general middle-aged and elderly population in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40029531What 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.