Association of Age With the Diagnostic Value of Coronary Artery Calcium Score for Ruling Out Coronary Stenosis in Symptomatic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The diagnostic value is unclear of a 0 coronary artery calcium (CAC) score to rule out obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and near-term clinical events across different age groups. Objective: To assess the diagnostic value of a CAC score of 0 for reducing the likelihood of obstructive CAD and to assess the implications of such a CAC score and obstructive CAD across different age groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study obtained data from the Western Denmark Heart Registry and had a median follow-up time of 4.3 years. Included patients were aged 18 years or older who underwent computed tomography angiography (CTA) between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017, because of symptoms that were suggestive of CAD. Data analysis was performed from April 5 to July 7, 2021. Exposures: Obstructive CAD, which was defined as 50% or more luminal stenosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of individuals with obstructive CAD who had a CAC score of 0. Risk-adjusted diagnostic likelihood ratios were used to assess the diagnostic value of a CAC score of 0 for reducing the likelihood of obstructive CAD beyond clinical variables. Risk factors associated with myocardial infarction and death were estimated. Results: A total of 23 759 symptomatic patients, of whom 12 771 (54%) had a CAC score of 0, were included. This cohort had a median (IQR) age of 58 (49-65) years and was primarily composed of women (13 160 [55%]). Overall, the prevalence of obstructive CAD was relatively low across all age groups, ranging from 3% (39 of 1278 patients) in those who were younger than 40 years to 8% (52 of 619) among those who were 70 years or older. In patients with obstructive CAD, 14% (725 of 5043) had a CAC score of 0, and the prevalence varied across age groups from 58% (39 of 68) among those who were younger than 40 years, 34% (192 of 562) among those aged 40 to 49 years, 18% (268 of 1486) among those aged 50 to 59 years, 9% (174 of 1963) among those aged 60 to 69 years, to 5% (52 of 964) among those who were 70 years or older. The added diagnostic value of a CAC score of 0 decreased at a younger age, with a risk factor-adjusted diagnostic likelihood ratio of a CAC score of 0 ranging from 0.68 (approximately 32% lower likelihood of obstructive CAD than expected) in those who were younger than 40 years to 0.18 (approximately 82% lower likelihood than expected) in those who were 70 years or older. The presence of obstructive vs nonobstructive CAD among those with a CAC score of 0 was associated with a multivariable adjusted hazard ratio of 1.51 (95% CI, 0.98-2.33) for myocardial infarction and all-cause death; however, this hazard ratio varied from 1.80 (95% CI, 1.02-3.19) in those who were younger than 60 years to 1.24 (95% CI, 0.64-2.39) in those who were 60 years or older. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that the diagnostic value of a CAC score of 0 to rule out obstructive CAD beyond clinical variables was dependent on age, with the added diagnostic value being smaller for younger patients. In symptomatic patients who were younger than 60 years, a sizable proportion of obstructive CAD occurred among those without CAC and was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction and all-cause death.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".