| Title |
Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring in Young Adults: Evidence and Challenges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Cardiology Reports, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11886-018-0951-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marwan Saad, Naga Venkata Pothineni, Joseph Thomas, Richa Parikh, Swathi Kovelamudi, Dina Elsayed, Ramez Nairooz, Frederick Feit |
| Abstract |
This review aims to summarize the evidence and challenges of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring as a screening tool for coronary artery disease (CAD) in young adults. Several cohort studies have highlighted the value of CAC scoring in CAD risk assessment in young adults. The largest study to date is the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. The study examined patients at 18-30 years of age and demonstrated that the presence of any degree of CAC was associated with a higher risk of coronary events compared to zero CAC, with an incremental increase in the risk of events with higher scores. However, it is important to note that 70% of patients screened had CAC = 0 at the age of 56. Despite the evidence that higher CAC score cutoff used in guidelines for predicting cardiovascular risk may be "falsely reassuring," however, mass screening of young adults using CAC score may be challenging. The development of prediction tools and scoring systems to identify patients at higher risk of developing CAC based on known CAD risk factors may help reduce the number needed to screen to detect patients with positive CAC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 48% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2019.
All research outputs
#20,465,050
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#910
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#382,638
of 445,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#17
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.