CAC scores: mass volume vs density

(Bonnie) #1

In this you tube video Dr. mike Eades talks about the importance of knowing the density and the mass volume of your calcification scores. Apparently one should divide the mass volume by the mm slice used(density), then divide by your total CAC score to come up with a number 1-4. If your score is 1 it matters less what your total CAC score is than if your score is 3 or 4.
Can someone who is interested in such things, take a look and give me your take on this? This is the first time I have heard of such a qualifier for CAC score. Mine is 80 and I’d love to believe it isn’t a problem if my mass vol/density score is reasonable.

(Joey) #2

I know this is an ancient post, but having watched the video I’m still confused…

What exactly does one divide by which other figure, and then by yet a third figure to get a number that may fall somewhere between 1 to 4?

I can’t seem to get anything close to this using figures from two separate CAC test reports. So I’m feeling kind of confused.

The “size” figure seems to be 2.50 on the machine used in our local hospital, so that much I can discern. But trying to apply it to the various other results gets me nowhere near a 1-4 range.

Anyone have success making sense of this guidance from Dr. Eades? :man_shrugging:

(BuckRimfire) #3

Does the test report have a volume or “mass volume” on it?

(Joey) #4

Indeed, it does. For each coronary artery connection, there are individual figures labeled: AJ-130; Mass; Volume-130.

It’s performing the simple algebra being described that baffles me.

It’s unclear to me just what is supposed to be divided by what, and then yet another division following that (?), such that you get a figure between 1 and 4?

I can’t replicate anything close within that range.

(BuckRimfire) #5

I wonder if the original method is based on a machine or software that reports the values with different units than yours. Analogous to showing blood glucose in milliMolar vs mg/dL. That would prevent you from getting the expected result from the calculation without knowing what conversion factor to apply.

Can you post the complete report? Maybe if someone sees the actual document, they’ll be able to figure out if it’s using the same units as the one discussed in the video.

Caveat: I know virtually nothing about CAC scans except that Ivor Cummins (and his patron) swear by them and I’d like to get one!

(Joey) #6

Good suggestion. Again, to clarify, I’m not looking for medical advice on the web :wink:

Just trying to apply Eades’s thoughts about taking a closer look at the physics of one’s CAC results. I can’t make sense of the algebra he describes one should do to get a better insight into the CAC results.

With that in mind, here we go…

For context:

First CAC test was performed when just barely starting Keto (a few weeks). So this baseline score reflects decades of low fat / high fiber eating with consistent daily cardio exercise. Second, the follow-up CAC test reflects 6 months of diligent continuous keto eating with 18/6 eating window and ongoing exercise with an emphasis on strength training. During this time frame, I lost 20+ lbs, 4" of waistline, and felt continuously amazing - physically and mentally - and still do!

[Left Anterior Descending] AJ-130: 14 / MASS: 2 / Volume-130: 5
[Right Coronary Artery] AJ-130: 41 / MASS: 3 / Volume-130: 26
[TOTAL] AJ-130: 55 / MASS: 5 / Volume-130: 31
Combined “Score” = 55

[Left Anterior Descending] AJ-130: 13 / MASS: 1 / Volume-130: 4
[Left Circumflex] AJ-130: 2 / MASS: 1 / Volume-130: 5
[Right Coronary Artery] AJ-130: 53 / MASS: 7 / Volume-130: 43
[TOTAL] AJ-130: 68 / MASS: 9 / Volume-130: 52
Combined “Score” = 68

BTW, there’s a “THICKNESS” figure (constant on each visual scan) that indicates a setting of “2.50” - which I presume equates to the “SIZE” variable that Eades mentions. FWIW, the CAC tests were performed on the same hospital/very same machine … although different technician on duty.

Additional puzzle: Both my wife and I had CAC tests done together on both days - and both of our scores INCREASED despite cutting out the carbs, losing weight, feeling markedly healthy.

During this time fame we also began taking daily Vit D3/K2 supplements, fish oil, and eating home-ferments, etc.

This makes me wonder if it were really our arteries that got “more clogged” with calcium - or whether somethings else is going on with the precision and/or accuracy of the CAC tests? :man_shrugging: