ArticleScientific reports2020
Re-estimation improved the performance of two Framingham cardiovascular risk equations and the Pooled Cohort equations: A nationwide registry analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical prediction models for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: an external validation based on a systematic review and the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Pooled it
- Echo Chambers: Bias and Representation in Cardiac Imaging Datasets for Artificial Intelligence.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- Risk prediction and prevention in patients with advanced subclinical atherosclerosis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Review
- Validation and Recalibration of PCE, China-PAR, and PREVENT Models for Estimating ASCVD Risk in China.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- Article
- Acute effects of daylight saving time clock changes on mental and physical health in England: population based retrospective cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Improving Cardiovascular Disease Primary Prevention Treatment Thresholds in a New England Health Care System.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Nutritional and Lifestyle Features in a Mediterranean Cohort: An Epidemiological Instrument for Categorizing Metabotypes Based on a Computational Algorithm.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Observational
- Incorporating longitudinal history of risk factors into atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk prediction using deep learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Clinical utility gains from incorporating comorbidity and geographic location information into risk estimation equations for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Patient-oriented risk score for predicting death 1 year after myocardial infarction: the SweDen risk score.Open heart · 2022Article
- Updating Framingham CVD risk score using waist circumference and estimated cardiopulmonary function: a cohort study based on a southern Xinjiang population.BMC public health · 2022Article
- The roles of predictors in cardiovascular risk models - a question of modeling culture?BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Selection of variables for multivariable models: Opportunities and limitations in quantifying model stability by resampling.Statistics in medicine · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Equations predicting the risk of occurrence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are used in primary care to identify high-risk individuals among the general population. To improve the predictive performance of such equations, we updated the Framingham general CVD 1991 and 2008 equations and the Pooled Cohort equations for atherosclerotic CVD within five years in a contemporary cohort of individuals who participated in the Austrian health-screening program from 2009-2014. The cohort comprised 1.7 M individuals aged 30-79 without documented CVD history. CVD was defined by hospitalization or death from cardiovascular cause. Using baseline and follow-up data, we recalibrated and re-estimated the equations. We evaluated the gain in discrimination and calibration and assessed explained variation. A five-year general CVD risk of 4.61% was observed. As expected, discrimination c-statistics increased only slightly and ranged from 0.73-0.79. The two original Framingham equations overestimated the CVD risk, whereas the original Pooled Cohort equations underestimated it. Re-estimation improved calibration of all equations adequately, especially for high-risk individuals. Half of the individuals were reclassified into another risk category using the re-estimated equations. Predictors in the re-estimated Framingham equations explained 7.37% of the variation, whereas the Pooled Cohort equations explained 5.81%. Age was the most important predictor.
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.