ArticleScientific reports2017
A new look at risk patterns related to coronary heart disease incidence using survival tree analysis: 12 Years Longitudinal Study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decoding core genes and intercellular communication in osteosarcoma: bioinformatic investigation and immune cell profiling for diagnostic and therapeutic insights.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- Epidemiological analysis of coronary heart disease and its main risk factors: are their associations multiplicative, additive, or interactive?Annals of medicine · 2022Article
- Analysing First Birth Interval by A CART Survival Tree.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2020Article
- Tobacco Smoking: Findings from 20 Years of the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2018Review
- Application of survival tree analysis for exploration of potential interactions between predictors of incident chronic kidney disease: a 15-year follow-up study.Journal of translational medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We identified risk patterns associated with incident coronary heart disease (CHD) using survival tree, and compared performance of survival tree versus Cox proportional hazards (Cox PH) in a cohort of Iranian adults. Data on 8,279 participants (3,741 men) aged ≥30 yr were used to analysis. Survival trees identified seven subgroups with different risk patterns using four [(age, non-HDL-C, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and family history of diabetes] and five [(age, systolic blood pressure (SBP), non-HDL-C, FPG and family history of CVD] predictors in women and men, respectively. Additional risk factors were identified by Cox models which included: family history of CVD and waist circumference (in both genders); hip circumference, former smoking and using aspirin among men; diastolic blood pressure and lipid lowering drug among women. Survival trees and multivariate Cox models yielded comparable performance, as measured by integrated Brier score (IBS) and Harrell's C-index on validation datasets; however, survival trees produced more parsimonious models with a minimum number of well recognized risk factors of CHD incidence, and identified important interactions between these factors which have important implications for intervention programs and improve clinical decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.