Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 458

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of Coronary Artery Calcium Scanning on Coronary Risk Factors and Downstream Testing

Open access
Rozanski, Alan, Gransar, Heidi, Shaw, Leslee J., Kim, Johanna, Miranda-Peats, Lisa, Wong, Nathan D., Rana, Jamal S., Orakzai, Raza, Hayes, Sean W., Friedman, John D., Thomson, Louise E.J., Polk, Donna, Min, James, Budoff, Matthew J., Berman, Daniel S.·2011·Journal of the American College of Cardiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.01.019
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE We conducted a prospective randomized trial to compare the clinical impact of conventional risk factor modification to that associated with coronary artery calcium (CAC) scanning. BACKGROUND Although CAC scanning predicts cardiac events, its impact on subsequent medical management and CAD risk is not known. METHODS We assigned 2,137 volunteers to groups that did versus did not undergo CAC scanning before risk factor counseling. The primary end-point was 4-year change in CAD risk factors and Framingham Risk Score (FRS). We also compared the groups for differences in downstream medical resource utilization. RESULTS Compared to the no-scan group, the scan group showed a net favorable change in systolic blood pressure (p=0.02), LDL-cholesterol (p=0.04), waist circumference for those with increased abdominal girth (p=0.01), and tendency to weight loss among overweight subjects (p=0.07). While mean FRS rose in the no-scan group, it remained static in the scan group (0.7±5.1 versus 0.002±4.9, p=0.003). Within the scan group, increasing baseline CAC score was associated with a dose-response improvement in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p<0.001), total cholesterol (p<0.001), LDL-cholesterol (p<0.001), triglycerides (p<0.001), weight (p<0.001) and FRS (p=0.003). Downstream medical testing and costs in the scan group were comparable versus the no-scan group, balanced by lower and higher resource utilization for those with normal CAC scans and CAC scores ≥400, respectively. CONCLUSIONS As compared to no scanning, randomization to CAC scanning was associated with superior CAD risk factor control without increasing downstream medical testing. Further study of CAC scanning for improvement of cardiovascular outcomes may be warranted. (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00927693).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.01.019

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 458

Metadata

Authors
Rozanski, A., Gransar, H., Shaw, L. J., Kim, J., Miranda-Peats, L., Wong, N. D., Rana, J. S., Orakzai, R., Hayes, S. W., Friedman, J. D., Thomson, L. E. J., Polk, D., Min, J., Budoff, M. J., & Berman, D. S.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
57
Issue
15
Pages
1622-1632
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jacc.2011.01.019
OpenAlex
W1743552125
Cited by
458
References
34
FWCI
27.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of Coronary Artery Calcium Scanning on Coronary Risk Factors and Downstream Testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.01.019
The paper
Rozanski, A., Gransar, H., Shaw, L. J., Kim, J., Miranda-Peats, L., Wong, N. D., Rana, J. S., Orakzai, R., Hayes, S. W., Friedman, J. D., Thomson, L. E. J., Polk, D., Min, J., Budoff, M. J., & Berman, D. S. (2011). Impact of Coronary Artery Calcium Scanning on Coronary Risk Factors and Downstream Testing. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.01.019

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.