We only have this paper's title and publication details.
Read it at the sourceCaptured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“I think the adherence to medical therapy is what made it a positive study. Almost everyone stayed on medication after being shown their CT images, compared to the wider community where only 50% stay on statins in primary prevention at 12 months. I think the benefit of CAC is as much of an educational tool as it is as a guide for doctors to start preventive therapy. It moves the patient's perception from: 'I've got risk factors that could or could not be important in 20 years' time' to 'I have evidence of early coronary disease.'”
“As a preventive cardiologist, one of the biggest dilemmas that we have while managing patients is the question: what is your risk? That simple question demands a smarter answer. We have spent decades trying to estimate risk with risk scores, but why are we still guessing? [With] risk scores like the pooled cohort equations, the PREVENT score, and even the Australian risk scores, there is a growing realization that they are inherently imprecise. They don't detect disease. They just estimate probabilities.”
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michael Joseph Blaha (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: