Radiation-induced coronary artery calcification in breast cancer: insights from a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiation therapy for breast cancer increases the risk of coronary artery disease by promoting atherosclerotic plaques. However, the extent of changes in coronary artery calcification (CAC) scores postradiation and the influencing factors remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated studies investigating changes in CAC scores following breast cancer radiation therapy. Data abstraction was independently performed by two unblinded reviewers using structured collection forms, with no divergences in data collection. The nine-star Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scoring system assessed methodological quality. Statistical analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Among eight studies (1972 patients), radiation doses ranged from 47 to 60 Grays. The overall rate of CAC score increase or new appearance postradiation was 25.8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 21.3-30.8%]. The rate was significantly higher after left-sided radiation at 32.3% (95% CI, 25.7-39.6%) compared to 16.1% (95% CI, 5.8-37.3%) for right-sided radiation. CAC score development occurs in approximately one-quarter of breast cancer patients after radiation therapy, with a significantly higher risk following left-sided radiation. These findings underscore the need for tailored monitoring strategies to mitigate cardiovascular risks in this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".