ArticlePloS one2020
Development and validation of risk prediction models for multiple cardiovascular diseases and Type 2 diabetes.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- H-DSAE: a hybrid technique to recognize heart disease.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the impact of Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index on in-hospital complications in patients with femoral fracture: a retrospective cohort analysis from the MIMIC-IV 2.2 database.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- An Intelligent and Reliable Hyperparameter Optimization Machine Learning Model for Early Heart Disease Assessment Using Imperative Risk Attributes.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Risk Prediction of Cardiovascular Events by Exploration of Molecular Data with Explainable Artificial Intelligence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Machine learning approach to dynamic risk modeling of mortality in COVID-19: a UK Biobank study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Post-Analysis of Predictive Modeling with an Epidemiological Example.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Machine Learning-Based Cardiovascular Disease Prediction Model: A Cohort Study on the Korean National Health Insurance Service Health Screening Database.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Development of Digitally Obtainable 10-Year Risk Scores for Depression and Anxiety in the General Population.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate risk assessment of an individuals' propensity to develop cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) is crucial for the prevention of these conditions. Numerous published risk prediction models used for CVD risk assessment are based on conventional risk factors and include only a limited number of biomarkers. The addition of novel biomarkers can boost the discriminative ability of risk prediction models for CVDs with different pathogenesis. The present study reports the development of risk prediction models for a range of heterogeneous CVDs, including coronary artery disease (CAD), stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), as well as for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2), a major CVD risk factor. In addition to conventional risk factors, the models incorporate various blood biomarkers and comorbidities to improve both individual and population stratification. An automatic variable selection approach was developed to generate the best set of explanatory variables for each model from the initial panel of risk factors. In total, up to 254,220 UK Biobank participants (ranging from 215,269 to 254,220 for different CVDs and DM2) were included in the analyses. The derived prediction models utilizing Cox proportional hazards regression achieved consistent discrimination performance (C-index) for all diseases: CAD, 0.794 (95% CI, 0.787-0.801); DM2, 0.909 (95% CI, 0.903-0.916); stroke, 0.778 (95% CI, 0.756-0.801); DVT, 0.743 (95% CI, 0.737-0.749); and AAA, 0.893 (95% CI, 0.874-0.912). When validated on various subpopulations, they demonstrated higher discrimination in healthier and middle-age individuals. In general, calibration of a five-year risk of developing the CVDs and DM2 demonstrated incremental overestimation of disease-related conditions amongst the highest decile of risk probabilities. In summary, the risk prediction models described were validated with high discrimination and good calibration for several CVDs and DM2. These models incorporate multiple shared predictor variables and may be integrated into a single platform to enhance clinical stratification to impact health outcomes.
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.