ArticlePloS one2018
Contribution of the neighborhood environment to cross-sectional variation in long-term CVD risk scores in the Framingham Heart Study.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Few studies of the health impact of the built environment have examined downstream outcomes, such as cardiovascular disease. We analyzed the neighborhood-level proportional variance in the 10- and 30-year Framingham risk scores (FRS) in the Framingham Heart Study. Our analysis included 3,103 Offspring- and Generation 3 cohort participants 20-74 years old, inhabiting private residences in Massachusetts geocoded to neighborhoods (defined as 2000 US Census block groups) containing the residences of ≥5 participants. The outcome variables were log-transformed to mitigate the effects of the non-normal distributions. In order to remove the possible effects of neighborhood clustering by age and sex, we analyzed residuals of the transformed FRS regressed upon age and sex. Neighborhood-level intraclass correlations (ICCs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of age- and sex-independent, log-transformed FRS were estimated using multilevel linear regression. Individual- and neighborhood-level variables were then added to models to evaluate their influence on ICCs. Analyses were repeated stratified by sex. Among 2,888 participants living in 187 neighborhoods, 1.73% (95% CI: 0.62, 4.72%) of the variance in 10-year FRS was explained at the neighborhood level. The neighborhood ICC was 2.70% (95% CI: 0.93, 7.56) among women but 0.23% (95% CI: 0.00, 99.47%) among men. In the analysis of the neighborhood-level variances in 30-year FRS among 2,317 participants residing in 164 neighborhoods, the ICCs were 3.31% (95% CI: 1.66, 6.47%), 6.47% (95% CI: 3.22, 12.58), and 0.74% (95% CI: 0.01, 33.31), among all participants, women, and men, respectively. In our homogenous middle-class white population in Massachusetts, residential neighborhoods explained a small proportion of the variance in CVD risk.
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.