Trial reportJournal of human hypertension2023
Development and validation of hypertension prediction models: The Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study_Cardiovascular Disease Association Study (KoGES_CAVAS).
Trial report in Journal of human hypertension, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic risk models for incident hypertension: A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Depressive symptoms and multiple markers of brain aging in community-dwelling older adults.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Development of risk models of incident hypertension using machine learning on the HUNT study data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Predicting South Korea adolescents vulnerable to depressive disorder using Bayesian nomogram: A community-based cross-sectional study.World journal of psychiatry · 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to develop and validate the hypertension risk prediction models of the CArdioVascular disease Association Study (CAVAS). Overall, 6,186 participants without hypertension at baseline were randomly divided into derivation and internal validation sets in a 6:4 ratio. We derived two prediction models: the first used the Framingham hypertension risk prediction factors (F-CAVAS-HTN); the second considered additional risk factors identified using stepwise Weibull regression analysis (CAVAS-HTN). These models were externally evaluated among Ansan and Ansung (A&A) participants, and the external validity of the Framingham and A&A prediction models (F-HTN and A&A-HTN) were assessed using the internal validation set of CAVAS. The discrimination, calibration, and net reclassification were determined. During the 4-year follow-up, 777 new cases of hypertension were diagnosed. All four models showed good discrimination (C-statistic ≥ 0.7). Internal calibrations were good for both the coefficient-based and the risk score-based F-CAVAS-HTN models, respectively (Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square, H-L χ
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.