ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2022
Contemporary Review of Risk Scores in Prediction of Coronary and Cardiovascular Deaths.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of substituting red and processed meat for mycoprotein on biomarkers of cardiovascular risk in healthy volunteers: an analysis of secondary endpoints from Mycomeat.European journal of nutrition · 2023Trial
- Data augmentation alters feature importance in XGBoost for CVD prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine learning approaches that use clinical, laboratory, and electrocardiogram data enhance the prediction of obstructive coronary artery disease.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewExplore the current literature supporting risk stratification scores for prediction of coronary and cardiovascular disease deaths. RECENT
findingsAccurate risk prediction remains the foundation of management choice in primary prevention. When applied to new populations, the calibration of a predictive model will deteriorate, although discrimination changes minimally. One of the approaches with better performance and validation is the initial use of pooled cohort equation to identify low and high-risk patients, followed by coronary artery calcium scoring in those with borderline to intermediate risk. It is important to utilize a risk stratification tool that has been validated in a patient population that resembles the one used to develop the original tool to maintain adequate calibration. It is likely that the future of mortality risk prediction will develop in combined clinical risk predictors and cardiovascular imaging, such coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring that renders the highest predictive accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35084670What 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.