Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy
There is a fine line between proactive and reactive medicine. My 80 year old cardiologist put me through all the tests, even though I didn't show any significant signs. . The only data point was and still is, my grandfather had a heart attack at 50, my dad at 60. . that's it for me. . borderline hypertensive . . framingham heart study said low risk, exactly the same score for another friend who had a heart attack. .
the calcium scan came back at 94. . . where the 100% score is total fossilization .. . . but agreed that there were no invasive tests. . . or at least these did not appear to me to be invasive. .
the smoking gun. . so I am on the same meds as those who have had heart attacks. .
the body is still a black box . . . until genetic medicine and AI is perfected, it will always be a black box. . and humans are humans. . the data and more data is great, but a human can only handle so much data, and that's where AI will really change medicine . . . being able to test thousands of data points for better predictors. .
AI Predicts Future Pancreatic Cancer | Harvard Medical School
OpenEvidence
full disclosure. . . i am a certified data junkie in the corporate world, building corporate data warehouses and building forecasting models. . |
A calcium score of 94 is not that bad depending on age. It is not 94 out of a 100. It is called an Agaston score and can be well into the thousands. Per the American College of Cardiology, it should only be used to determine need for a statin in a person of intermediate risk (5%-20%) of developing coronary disease. No need to repeat once the value is above zero.