ArticleScientific reports2021
A precision medicine approach to sex-based differences in ideal cardiovascular health.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Weight gain prevention interventions in the Study of Novel Approaches to Weight Gain Prevention (SNAP) trial promote ideal cardiovascular health in young adults.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2023Trial
- Cardiovascular risk prediction in women: rethinking traditional approaches through precision medicine.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Review
- Beyond BMI: Rethinking Obesity Metrics and Cardiovascular Risk in the Era of Precision Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Overcoming cohort heterogeneity for the prediction of subclinical cardiovascular disease risk.iScience · 2023Article
- Leveraging Digital Health to Improve the Cardiovascular Health of Women.Current cardiovascular risk reports · 2023Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease risk factor profiles and health behaviors are known to differ between women and men. Sex-based differences in ideal cardiovascular health were examined in the My Research Legacy study, which collected cardiovascular health and lifestyle data via Life's Simple 7 survey and digital health devices. As the study overenrolled women (n = 1251) compared to men (n = 310), we hypothesized that heterogeneity among women would affect comparisons of ideal cardiovascular health. We identified 2 phenogroups of women in our study cohort by cluster analysis. The phenogroups differed significantly across all 7 cardiovascular health and behavior domains (all p < 0.01) with women in phenogroup 1 having a lower Life's Simple 7 Health Score than those in phenogroup 2 (5.9 ± 1.3 vs. 7.6 ± 1.3, p < 0.01). Compared to men, women in phenogroup 1 had a higher burden of cardiovascular disease risk factors, exercised less, and had lower ideal cardiovascular health scores (p < 0.01). In contrast, women in phenogroup 2 had fewer cardiovascular risk factors but similar exercise habits and higher ideal cardiovascular health scores than men (p < 0.01). These findings suggest that heterogeneity among study participants should be examined when evaluating sex-based differences in ideal cardiovascular health.
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.