Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring in 2026: Still Powerful, but Only When Used for the Right Patient

Introduction

Coronary artery calcium scoring occupies a unique and sometimes controversial place in cardiovascular prevention. Some clinicians view it as one of the most powerful tools for refining risk beyond standard calculators. Others question whether it leads to unnecessary testing, radiation exposure, false reassurance, or overtreatment. The truth lies between these positions.

CAC scoring is best understood as a precision prevention tool. It does not diagnose ischemia, define stenosis severity, or replace clinical judgment. Instead, it quantifies calcified coronary atherosclerosis and helps estimate future ASCVD risk. For the right patient, this information can clarify whether preventive pharmacotherapy is worth starting, intensifying, or occasionally deferring.

The test is particularly useful because traditional risk calculators are imperfect. Age, cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, and other variables estimate probability, but they do not directly show whether atherosclerosis has already developed. CAC scoring adds an anatomic marker of coronary plaque burden. A high score identifies patients whose arteries have already accumulated substantial calcified plaque, while a zero score identifies a group with generally low short- to intermediate-term event rates.

However, CAC is not a universal screening test. It is not intended for very low-risk adults in whom treatment would not be recommended regardless of the result. It is also usually unnecessary in very high-risk patients for whom statin therapy is already clearly indicated. Its greatest value is in the clinical gray zone: asymptomatic adults with borderline or intermediate estimated risk when both clinician and patient are uncertain about preventive therapy.

The core question is therefore not whether CAC scoring is obsolete. It is whether clinicians are using it in the right patients, for the right reason, and with the right interpretation.

What Is Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring?

Coronary artery calcium scoring is performed using noncontrast cardiac computed tomography. The scan detects calcified plaque within the coronary arteries and quantifies it using the Agatston score. The procedure is quick, does not require intravenous contrast, and is typically completed within minutes.

Calcification is a marker of atherosclerotic plaque burden. As coronary plaque matures, calcium may accumulate within the arterial wall. The amount of calcium detected by CT correlates with total coronary atherosclerotic burden and future cardiovascular risk. Importantly, CAC is a marker of plaque burden, not a direct measurement of luminal narrowing. A high CAC score does not prove that a specific artery is obstructed, and a zero score does not exclude noncalcified plaque.

Modern CAC scans usually involve low radiation exposure, often around 1 mSv, although dose varies by scanner, patient size, acquisition protocol, and imaging center. This is generally considered low, but radiation exposure is still one reason CAC should be ordered selectively rather than reflexively.

The Agatston Score Explained

The standard CAC result is reported as an Agatston score. This scoring system identifies calcified lesions using CT attenuation thresholds and weights lesions according to density and area. The final score is the sum of calcified plaque across the coronary arteries.

Commonly used categories include:

CAC score	General interpretation
0	No detectable coronary calcification
1-99	Mild calcified plaque burden
100-299	Moderate plaque burden; statin therapy usually strongly favored
300-399	High plaque burden
≥400	Extensive calcified plaque burden and high ASCVD risk
≥1000	Very high plaque burden; risk may approximate or exceed some secondary-prevention populations

These categories are useful, but interpretation should also consider age, sex, and race/ethnicity-specific percentiles. A score of 25 may mean something different in a 45-year-old woman than in a 75-year-old man. Absolute scores often predict near-term risk, while percentile scores can help contextualize lifetime or age-adjusted risk.

Why CAC Remains Powerful

CAC directly measures coronary atherosclerosis burden

Traditional risk calculators estimate the probability of future ASCVD events based on risk factors. CAC provides direct evidence of calcified coronary plaque. This makes it especially useful when estimated risk and clinical intuition do not align.

For example, a patient with borderline calculated risk but a strong family history, metabolic syndrome, or elevated lipoprotein(a) may have a CAC score that reveals a much higher burden of atherosclerosis than expected. Conversely, an older adult with intermediate calculated risk driven mostly by age may have CAC = 0, supporting a less aggressive pharmacologic approach if no major high-risk features are present.

CAC improves risk classification

CAC scoring has repeatedly been shown to improve risk discrimination and reclassification beyond traditional risk factors. The National Lipid Association scientific statement notes that CAC scoring strongly informs ASCVD risk prediction and helps allocate statin therapy in primary prevention.

The 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol guideline incorporated CAC specifically for adults aged 40-75 years with LDL-C 70-189 mg/dL when the decision about statin therapy remains uncertain. Under that framework, CAC = 0 can support withholding or delaying statin therapy in selected patients; CAC 1-99 favors statin therapy, especially after age 55; and CAC ≥100 or ≥75th percentile supports statin initiation.

CAC can improve patient understanding and adherence

Risk is often abstract. Patients may have difficulty understanding a 7.5% or 10% 10-year ASCVD risk estimate. A CAC score can make risk more concrete. A high score may motivate adherence to statin therapy, blood pressure control, smoking cessation, dietary change, and exercise. A zero score may reduce anxiety and help avoid unnecessary medication in selected low-risk contexts.

The “Power of Zero”

A CAC score of zero is one of the strongest negative risk markers in primary prevention. It indicates no detectable calcified coronary plaque and is associated with a low short- to intermediate-term risk of ASCVD events in asymptomatic adults.

This does not mean risk is zero. It means risk is usually low enough that preventive decisions can be individualized. In the ACC/AHA approach, CAC = 0 may support deferring statin therapy when the patient is not a current smoker, does not have diabetes, and does not have a strong family history of premature ASCVD.

The duration of reassurance is often called the CAC “warranty period.” Earlier reports described long periods of low mortality in asymptomatic patients with CAC = 0, but modern interpretation should avoid presenting this as a universal 15-year guarantee. MESA data suggest that repeat scanning after CAC = 0 may be considered in approximately 3-7 years, depending on demographics and baseline risk profile.

When CAC = 0 is less reassuring

CAC = 0 should be interpreted more cautiously in:

Clinical context	Why caution is needed
Diabetes mellitus	Risk may remain elevated despite absent calcification
Current smoking	Event risk is not fully neutralized by CAC = 0
Strong premature family history	Inherited risk may precede detectable calcification
Severe hypercholesterolemia	Lifetime risk remains high
Younger adults	Noncalcified plaque may predominate
Symptoms suggestive of CAD	CAC is not a rule-out test for angina or ischemia
Chronic inflammatory disease	Risk may be underestimated by standard calculators
Elevated Lp(a)	Risk may remain high even when CAC is absent

The “power of zero” is real, but it is strongest in asymptomatic primary-prevention patients without major high-risk features.

The Case for CAC-Guided Statin Decisions

The most evidence-based role for CAC is to guide statin decisions in primary prevention.

For adults aged 40-75 years with LDL-C 70-189 mg/dL and borderline or intermediate estimated ASCVD risk, CAC can clarify whether statin therapy is likely to provide meaningful absolute benefit.

A practical interpretation is:

CAC result	Prevention implication
CAC = 0	Statin therapy may be deferred or delayed in selected patients, except when diabetes, smoking, strong premature family history, or other high-risk conditions are present
CAC 1-99	Statin therapy is favored, especially in adults ≥55 years
CAC ≥100	Statin therapy is strongly supported
CAC ≥75th percentile	Statin therapy is strongly supported even if the absolute score is modest
CAC ≥300-400	High-risk plaque burden; aggressive risk-factor modification is warranted
CAC ≥1000	Very high risk; consider whether LDL-C lowering should be intensified beyond moderate-intensity statin therapy

This framework should be used in shared decision-making. CAC does not mandate a single treatment pathway in every patient, but it can make the risk-benefit discussion much clearer.

Aspirin: CAC Can Inform the Decision, but Does Not Mandate Treatment

The original article overstated aspirin recommendations by implying that CAC >100 requires aspirin. This should be corrected.

Aspirin for primary prevention has become more restrictive because bleeding risk often offsets cardiovascular benefit. The 2019 ACC/AHA primary prevention guideline states that low-dose aspirin may be considered only for select adults aged 40-70 years who are at higher ASCVD risk and not at increased bleeding risk; it should not be used routinely in adults over 70 or in anyone at increased bleeding risk.

CAC can help refine aspirin decisions. Patients with CAC ≥100, and especially CAC ≥400, may be more likely to derive net benefit from aspirin if their bleeding risk is low. However, CAC should never override major bleeding concerns.

Aspirin should generally be avoided or used with extreme caution in patients with:

Bleeding-risk factor

Prior gastrointestinal bleeding or peptic ulcer disease

Concurrent anticoagulant therapy

Chronic NSAID or steroid use

Thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy

Advanced age, especially >70 years

Chronic kidney disease with bleeding tendency

Uncontrolled hypertension

History of hemorrhagic stroke

High fall risk or frailty

Better clinical wording is:

CAC ≥100 may identify selected primary-prevention patients more likely to benefit from aspirin, but aspirin should only be considered after individualized assessment of age, ASCVD risk, bleeding risk, and patient preference.

What CAC Cannot Do

CAC does not detect noncalcified plaque

CAC detects calcified plaque. It does not directly visualize noncalcified plaque, lipid-rich plaque, plaque rupture, or luminal stenosis. Younger adults and symptomatic patients may have clinically important noncalcified plaque despite CAC = 0.

This limitation is essential. CAC = 0 should not be used as a stand-alone test to rule out coronary disease in a patient with chest pain, exertional dyspnea suspicious for angina, unexplained exercise intolerance, or other ischemic symptoms.

In symptomatic patients, diagnostic testing should be guided by chest pain guidelines, pretest probability, age, ECG findings, troponin when appropriate, and clinical presentation. Coronary CT angiography or stress imaging may be more appropriate than CAC alone.

CAC does not measure stenosis severity

High CAC indicates a high burden of calcified plaque and increased future ASCVD risk. However, it does not prove that a specific artery has obstructive stenosis. Some heavily calcified plaques may not produce severe narrowing, while some dangerous noncalcified plaques may exist with little or no calcium.

Therefore, CAC should not automatically trigger coronary angiography in asymptomatic patients. The appropriate response to high CAC is usually aggressive preventive therapy, not invasive testing, unless symptoms or other findings suggest ischemia.

CAC does not replace lifestyle medicine

CAC can refine risk, but it does not replace foundational prevention: dietary quality, physical activity, smoking cessation, blood pressure control, sleep, weight management, diabetes prevention or treatment, and lipid lowering when indicated.

Downstream Testing and Overtreatment

One legitimate concern about CAC scoring is the downstream cascade. A high score can lead to stress testing, coronary CT angiography, invasive angiography, or even revascularization in asymptomatic patients. This is not always beneficial.

In asymptomatic patients, high CAC usually indicates the need for medical prevention, not automatic ischemia testing or catheterization. Revascularization has not been shown to improve outcomes in stable asymptomatic patients simply because CAC is high. Testing should be driven by symptoms, functional limitation, ischemic equivalents, abnormal examination, or other clinical indicators.

A high CAC score should trigger:

• Intensive LDL-C lowering.
• Blood pressure optimization.
• Diabetes and metabolic risk control.
• Smoking cessation.
• Exercise and nutrition counseling.
• Consideration of aspirin only when bleeding risk is low.
• Evaluation for risk-enhancing factors such as Lp(a), ApoB, CKD, inflammatory disease, or family history.

It should not reflexively trigger invasive procedures in an asymptomatic patient.

Who Should Consider CAC Testing?

CAC is most appropriate when the result will change management. The classic candidate is an asymptomatic adult with borderline or intermediate ASCVD risk and uncertainty about statin therapy.

Strong candidates

Patient group	Why CAC may help
Adults 40-75 with borderline 10-year ASCVD risk	CAC may clarify whether statin therapy is worthwhile
Adults 40-75 with intermediate risk	CAC can reclassify risk upward or downward
Patients reluctant to start statins	CAC may improve shared decision-making
Patients with risk enhancers but uncertain treatment threshold	CAC can show whether plaque is already present
Older adults whose calculated risk is age-driven	CAC = 0 may identify lower-risk individuals
Patients with strong family history but unclear short-term risk	CAC may help personalize prevention intensity

Risk enhancers that may support CAC testing include premature family history of ASCVD, elevated Lp(a), elevated ApoB, metabolic syndrome, chronic kidney disease, inflammatory disorders, premature menopause, South Asian ancestry, persistently elevated triglycerides, and selected pregnancy-related risk conditions.

Patients less likely to benefit

Patient group	Why CAC may add little
Very low-risk young adults	Results rarely change management
Patients with known ASCVD	Already secondary prevention
Patients with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL	Statin therapy is generally indicated regardless of CAC
Most adults with diabetes aged 40-75	Statin therapy is often already indicated
Patients with clear angina or ischemic symptoms	CAC alone is not the correct diagnostic test
Patients already committed to intensive therapy	CAC may not change treatment
Pregnant patients	Avoid radiation-based elective testing

CAC may still be considered in selected statin-treated patients for risk communication or intensification decisions, but its highest-value use is before therapy decisions are finalized.

Diabetes and CAC: A Nuanced Role

Diabetes deserves special caution. Many adults with diabetes already qualify for statin therapy based on guideline risk. Therefore, CAC should not be presented as a universal diabetes screening test at a specific age.

However, CAC can sometimes refine risk in diabetes. CAC = 0 in a patient with diabetes may identify lower near-term risk, but it does not erase the diagnosis-related risk. Duration of diabetes, glycemic control, albuminuria, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, neuropathy, smoking, hypertension, and family history should all influence interpretation.

In diabetes, CAC is best used selectively, such as when deciding whether to intensify lipid-lowering therapy, improve risk communication, or evaluate unexpectedly low or high risk. It should not be used to justify ignoring standard diabetes prevention recommendations.

High CAC Scores: What They Mean and What to Do

A high CAC score identifies high atherosclerotic burden and increased ASCVD risk. The higher the CAC score, the more aggressive prevention should become.

CAC ≥100

CAC ≥100 strongly supports statin therapy. Moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is typically appropriate depending on age, LDL-C, comorbidities, medication tolerance, and shared decision-making.

CAC ≥300-400

CAC in this range indicates high plaque burden. Clinicians should consider aggressive LDL-C lowering, evaluation for risk enhancers, and closer attention to blood pressure, glycemic status, kidney function, and lifestyle factors. Aspirin may be considered only if bleeding risk is low.

CAC ≥1000

CAC ≥1000 represents a very high plaque burden. These patients may have event rates approaching high-risk or secondary-prevention populations. Treatment may require high-intensity statin therapy and consideration of additional LDL-C-lowering agents if LDL-C remains above individualized targets. Clinical symptoms should be assessed carefully, but invasive evaluation should still be symptom- or ischemia-driven rather than based on the calcium score alone.

Repeat CAC Scanning

Repeat scanning should be used selectively. The most common scenario is a patient with CAC = 0 in whom the clinician wants to reassess risk after several years.

MESA data suggest considering repeat scanning after CAC = 0 in approximately 3-7 years, depending on demographics and risk profile. Higher-risk patients may warrant shorter intervals, while low-risk patients may reasonably wait longer.

A practical approach:

Baseline result	Repeat-scan approach
CAC = 0, low risk	Consider repeat in 5-7 years if results would change management
CAC = 0, borderline/intermediate risk	Consider repeat in 3-5 years
CAC = 0 with diabetes, smoking, strong family history, or high-risk enhancers	Consider earlier reassessment or treatment despite zero score
CAC >0	Routine serial scanning is usually less useful than treating risk factors
High CAC	Focus on prevention intensity rather than tracking calcium progression

Interpreting CAC progression is complicated. Statins may increase plaque calcification or density while stabilizing plaque, so a rising calcium score during statin therapy does not necessarily mean treatment failure. For most patients with positive CAC, the more important goal is aggressive and sustained risk-factor management.

Cost, Radiation, and Practical Considerations

CAC testing is relatively inexpensive compared with many cardiac imaging tests, though cost and insurance coverage vary. In many regions, patients pay out of pocket. The test is quick and does not require contrast, but it does involve radiation exposure.

The main practical harms are not usually radiation alone. They include misinterpretation, false reassurance, patient anxiety, unnecessary downstream testing, incidental findings, and overtreatment. These harms are minimized when CAC is ordered only when the result is likely to change a prevention decision.

USPSTF Perspective: Why Some Debate Remains

A balanced article should acknowledge that guideline bodies differ in enthusiasm for CAC. ACC/AHA and National Lipid Association guidance support selective use of CAC when treatment decisions are uncertain. The USPSTF, however, has concluded that evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of adding CAC to traditional risk assessment in asymptomatic adults. This is an “I statement,” not a recommendation against CAC. It reflects uncertainty about direct trial evidence showing improved hard outcomes from CAC-guided care.

This distinction is important. CAC has strong observational evidence for risk prediction and reclassification. What remains less certain is whether CAC-guided strategies consistently improve clinical outcomes compared with well-applied traditional prevention strategies.

Actionable Interpretation by CAC Result

CAC result	Suggested clinical interpretation
0	Low short- to intermediate-term risk in asymptomatic primary prevention; consider deferring statin only if no diabetes, smoking, strong premature family history, severe hypercholesterolemia, or symptoms
1-99	Mild plaque; favors statin therapy, especially age ≥55 or presence of risk enhancers
100-299	Statin therapy strongly supported; intensify lifestyle and risk-factor control
300-399	High plaque burden; consider high-intensity prevention strategy
≥400	Extensive plaque burden; high ASCVD risk; evaluate symptoms carefully but avoid reflexive invasive testing in asymptomatic patients
≥1000	Very high risk; consider intensive LDL-C lowering and comprehensive risk-factor management

Case Examples

Case 1: Intermediate-risk patient reluctant to start a statin

A 58-year-old man has LDL-C of 150 mg/dL, controlled blood pressure, no diabetes, and a borderline-to-intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk estimate. He is reluctant to start a statin. CAC scoring shows CAC = 0. In the absence of smoking, diabetes, or strong premature family history, deferring statin therapy with lifestyle optimization and repeat risk assessment may be reasonable.

Case 2: Low calculated risk but strong inherited risk

A 46-year-old woman has LDL-C of 135 mg/dL, normal blood pressure, and low calculated 10-year risk, but her father had myocardial infarction at age 49 and her Lp(a) is elevated. CAC scoring shows CAC = 125, above the expected range for her age and sex. This finding supports statin therapy despite a low short-term calculator estimate.

Case 3: High CAC in an asymptomatic patient

A 64-year-old man undergoes CAC testing and has a score of 650. He has no chest pain, no exertional dyspnea, and good exercise capacity. The appropriate response is aggressive preventive therapy and symptom assessment, not automatic catheterization. If symptoms develop or functional capacity changes, diagnostic testing should be reconsidered.

Case 4: Symptomatic patient with CAC = 0

A 39-year-old man with exertional chest pressure and strong family history has CAC = 0. This result does not rule out noncalcified plaque or obstructive disease. Because he has symptoms, further diagnostic evaluation may be appropriate despite the zero calcium score.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is CAC scoring obsolete?

No. CAC scoring remains valuable when used selectively in asymptomatic primary-prevention patients where treatment decisions are uncertain.

What is the most useful CAC result?

CAC = 0 is often the most clinically useful result because it can identify patients with low short- to intermediate-term risk. However, it should not be overused as a universal reassurance tool.

Does CAC = 0 mean no coronary disease?

No. CAC = 0 means no detectable calcified coronary plaque. It does not exclude noncalcified plaque, especially in younger or symptomatic patients.

Should CAC >100 automatically lead to aspirin?

No. CAC ≥100 may support considering aspirin in selected adults with low bleeding risk, but aspirin should not be automatic. Age, bleeding history, medications, kidney disease, and patient preference matter.

Should CAC >400 lead to catheterization?

Not by itself. In asymptomatic patients, high CAC should usually prompt aggressive prevention. Catheterization or stress testing should be driven by symptoms, ischemic signs, or other clinical indications.

How often should CAC be repeated?

For CAC = 0, repeat scanning can be considered in about 3-7 years depending on baseline risk and whether results would change management. Routine repeat scanning after a positive CAC is usually less useful than risk-factor treatment.

Who should not get CAC testing?

CAC is usually unnecessary in very low-risk adults, patients with known ASCVD, patients already clearly requiring intensive therapy, pregnant patients, and symptomatic patients who need diagnostic evaluation rather than risk stratification.

References

Arnett, D. K., Blumenthal, R. S., Albert, M. A., Buroker, A. B., Goldberger, Z. D., Hahn, E. J., Himmelfarb, C. D., Khera, A., Lloyd-Jones, D., McEvoy, J. W., Michos, E. D., Miedema, M. D., Muñoz, D., Smith, S. C., Jr., Virani, S. S., Williams, K. A., Sr., Yeboah, J., & Ziaeian, B. (2019). 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation, 140(11), e596-e646.

Blaha, M. J., Cainzos-Achirica, M., Greenland, P., McEvoy, J. W., Blankstein, R., Budoff, M. J., Dardari, Z., Sibley, C. T., Burke, G. L., Kronmal, R. A., Szklo, M., & Nasir, K. (2016). Role of coronary artery calcium score of zero and other negative risk markers for cardiovascular disease: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Circulation, 133(9), 849-858.

Budoff, M. J., Young, R., Burke, G., Carr, J. J., Detrano, R. C., Folsom, A. R., Kronmal, R., Lima, J. A. C., Liu, K. J., McClelland, R. L., Michos, E., Post, W. S., Shea, S., Watson, K. E., Wong, N. D., & Kuller, L. H. (2013). Ten-year association of coronary artery calcium with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. European Heart Journal, 34(20), 1521-1528.

Dzaye, O., Dardari, Z. A., Cainzos-Achirica, M., Berman, D. S., Budoff, M. J., Rozanski, A., Nasir, K., Blumenthal, R. S., Blaha, M. J., & Mortensen, M. B. (2021). Warranty period of a calcium score of zero: Comprehensive analysis from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 14(5), 990-1002.

Grundy, S. M., Stone, N. J., Bailey, A. L., Beam, C., Birtcher, K. K., Blumenthal, R. S., Braun, L. T., de Ferranti, S., Faiella-Tommasino, J., Forman, D. E., Goldberg, R., Heidenreich, P. A., Hlatky, M. A., Jones, D. W., Lloyd-Jones, D., Lopez-Pajares, N., Ndumele, C. E., Orringer, C. E., Peralta, C. A., … Yeboah, J. (2019). 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol. Circulation, 139(25), e1082-e1143.

Miedema, M. D., Duprez, D. A., Misialek, J. R., Blaha, M. J., Nasir, K., Silverman, M. G., Blankstein, R., Budoff, M. J., Greenland, P., Folsom, A. R., & Lakoski, S. G. (2014). Use of coronary artery calcium testing to guide aspirin utilization for primary prevention: Estimates from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 7(3), 453-460.

Mitchell, J. D., Fergestrom, N., Gage, B. F., Paisley, R., Moon, P., Novak, E., Cheezum, M., Shaw, L. J., Villines, T. C., & Berman, D. S. (2018). Impact of statins on cardiovascular outcomes following coronary artery calcium scoring. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 72(25), 3233-3242.

Orringer, C. E., Blaha, M. J., Blankstein, R., Budoff, M. J., Goldberg, R. B., Gill, E. A., Maki, K. C., Mehta, L. S., Jacobson, T. A., & National Lipid Association Expert Panel. (2021). The National Lipid Association scientific statement on coronary artery calcium scoring to guide preventive strategies for ASCVD risk reduction. Journal of Clinical Lipidology, 15(1), 33-60.

United States Preventive Services Task Force. (2018). Risk assessment for cardiovascular disease with nontraditional risk factors: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 320(3), 272-280.

Valenti, V., Ó Hartaigh, B., Heo, R., Cho, I., Schulman-Marcus, J., Gransar, H., Truong, Q. A., Shaw, L. J., Knapper, J., Kelkar, A. A., Sciarretta, S., Chang, H.-J., Callister, T. Q., Min, J. K., & Berman, D. S. (2015). A 15-year warranty period for asymptomatic individuals without coronary artery calcium: A prospective follow-up of 9,715 individuals. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 8(8), 900-909.

Yano, Y., O’Donnell, C. J., Kuller, L., Kavousi, M., Erbel, R., Ning, H., D’Agostino, R. B., Sr., Newman, A. B., Nasir, K., Hofman, A., Pletcher, M. J., Psaty, B. M., & Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (2017). Association of coronary artery calcium score vs age with cardiovascular risk in older adults: An analysis of pooled population-based studies. JAMA Cardiology, 2(9), 986-994.