ArticleScientific reports2021
A newly developed and externally validated non-clinical score accurately predicts 10-year cardiovascular disease risk in the general adult population.
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 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Discrimination and calibration performances of non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based cardiovascular risk predictions: a systematic review.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- Overcoming Missing Data: Accurately Predicting Cardiovascular Risk in Type 2 Diabetes, A Systematic Review.Journal of diabetes · 2025Pooled it
- Ocular markers of microangiopathy and their possible association with cardiovascular risk in patients with systemic inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a systematic review.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Risk of cardiovascular disease in Germany: results from GEDA 2022.Journal of health monitoring · 2025Article
- Identifying risk factors associated with the health-related quality of life for coronary heart diseases elderly using association rule mining.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sex Differences in the Relationship of Socioeconomic Position With Cardiovascular Disease, Cardiovascular Risk Factors, and Estimated Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Results of the German National Cohort.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice toward sleep hygiene and cardiovascular health: a cross-sectional survey among healthcare workers.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Precision prognostics for the development of complications in diabetes.Diabetologia · 2022Review
- The clinical characterization of the adult patient with bipolar disorder aimed at personalization of management.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2022Article
- German Diabetes Risk Score for the Determination of the Individual Type 2 Diabetes Risk—10-Year Prediction and External Validations.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inclusion of clinical parameters limits the application of most cardiovascular disease (CVD) prediction models to clinical settings. We developed and externally validated a non-clinical CVD risk score with a clinical extension and compared the performance to established CVD risk scores. We derived the scores predicting CVD (non-fatal and fatal myocardial infarction and stroke) in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Potsdam cohort (n = 25,992, cases = 683) using competing risk models and externally validated in EPIC-Heidelberg (n = 23,529, cases = 692). Performance was assessed by C-indices, calibration plots, and expected-to-observed ratios and compared to a non-clinical model, the Pooled Cohort Equation, Framingham CVD Risk Scores (FRS), PROCAM scores, and the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE). Our non-clinical score included age, gender, waist circumference, smoking, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, CVD family history, and dietary parameters. C-indices consistently indicated good discrimination (EPIC-Potsdam 0.786, EPIC-Heidelberg 0.762) comparable to established clinical scores (thereof highest, FRS: EPIC-Potsdam 0.781, EPIC-Heidelberg 0.764). Additional clinical parameters slightly improved discrimination (EPIC-Potsdam 0.796, EPIC-Heidelberg 0.769). Calibration plots indicated very good calibration with minor overestimation in the highest decile of predicted risk. The developed non-clinical 10-year CVD risk score shows comparable discrimination to established clinical scores, allowing assessment of individual CVD risk in physician-independent settings.
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.