ArticleAnnals of epidemiology2019
Racial and sex differences in biological and chronological heart age in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study.
Article in Annals of epidemiology, 2019. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging markers of ageing: a multi-centre, cross-sectional cohort study.European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Article
- Child Marriage and Cardiovascular Risk: An Application of the Non-laboratory Framingham Risk Score.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2024Article
- Folate, Vitamin B6, and Vitamin B12 Status in Association With Metabolic Syndrome Incidence.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Predicted heart age profile across 41 countries: A cross-sectional study of nationally representative surveys in six world regions.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCalculation of a biological heart age offers an alternative to absolute risk for characterizing cardiovascular risk by describing risk relative to an individual with normal health. We examined risk factors contributing to differences between biological and chronological heart age in young adults.
methodsThe Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study included 2264 Black and White men and women who attended examination years 10 through 25. We estimated biological heart age using the nonlaboratory-based Framingham 10-year cardiovascular disease risk calculator. Trends in risk factors were examined cross-sectionally and longitudinally.
resultsBiological heart ages for Black participants were 5.6 years older than their chronological ages over 15 years (P < .001). In longitudinal analyses, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio and alcohol intake were statistically significantly related to higher biological compared with chronological heart age, whereas physical activity and education were statistically significantly related to negative heart age differences (P < .001). Trends were similar in cross-sectional analyses at all time points.
conclusionsMost risk factors driving biological heart age, including race, education, physical activity, and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, contributed to heart age differences cross-sectionally and longitudinally suggesting that risk factors related to adverse biological aging are important at younger and older ages.
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.