ReviewFuture cardiology2026
Sex-informed interpretation of coronary artery calcium in primary prevention.
Review in Future cardiology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring is selectively used to refine cardiovascular risk assessment in primary prevention, but interpretation still relies largely on absolute thresholds applied similarly to women and men. This approach may overlook relevant sex-related differences in coronary atherosclerosis. Women tend to develop detectable CAC later in life and have lower absolute CAC values for a given age, while sex-related differences in coronary plaque composition may not be fully captured by calcium scoring alone. Consequently, a low absolute CAC score may still represent a high age- and sex-specific percentile in women. Traditional risk algorithms and CAC-based strategies also do not systematically account for female-specific risk enhancers, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, gestational diabetes, premature menopause, and polycystic ovary syndrome. Relevant literature was identified through a PubMed search from database inception to September 2026. This Perspective examines sex-related differences in CAC distribution and prognosis and discusses how absolute CAC scores, demographic percentiles, and female-specific risk enhancers can inform preventive care. We propose integrating these measures while retaining established absolute CAC categories. The clinical value of distinct numerical treatment thresholds for women and men requires prospective evaluation.
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.