ArticleScientific reports2022
Heterogeneity in coronary heart disease risk.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ensuring generalizability and clinical utility in mental health care applications: Robust artificial intelligence-based treatment predictions in diverse psychosis populations.Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2026Article
- A study on predicted in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with coronary heart disease: analysis of the MIMIC-IV database.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Causal Inference for First Non-Fatal Events With the Competing Risk of Death: A Principal Stratification Approach.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Precision cardiovascular medicine: shifting the innovation paradigm.Frontiers in science · 2025Article
- Predictive Factors and Risk Assessment for Hospitalization in Chest Pain Patients Admitted to the Emergency Department.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Red cell distribution width/albumin ratio as a marker for metabolic syndrome: findings from a cross-sectional study.BMC endocrine disorders · 2024Article
- Association between the Fatty Liver Index (FLI) and incident coronary heart disease: insights from a cohort study on the Chinese population.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Low-dose atorvastatin calcium combined with evolocumab: effect on regulatory proteins, lipid profiles, and cardiac function in coronary heart disease patients.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Long-Term Exposure of Nitrogen Oxides Air Pollution (NOJournal of personalized medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is large inter-individual heterogeneity in risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Risk factors traditionally used in primary risk assessment only partially explain this heterogeneity. Residual, unobserved heterogeneity leads to age-related attenuation of hazard rates and underestimation of hazard ratios. Its magnitude is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to estimate a lower and an approximate upper bound. Heterogeneity was parametrized by a log-normal distribution with shape parameter σ. Analysis was based on published data. From concordance indices of studies including traditional risk factors and additional diagnostic imaging data, we calculated the part of heterogeneity explained by imaging data. For traditional risk assessment, this part typically remains unexplained, thus constituting a lower bound on unobserved heterogeneity. Next, the potential impact of heterogeneity on CHD hazard rates in several large countries was investigated. CHD rates increase with age but the increase attenuates with age. Presuming this attenuation to be largely caused by heterogeneity, an approximate upper bound on σ was derived. Taking together both bounds, unobserved heterogeneity in studies without imaging information can be described by a shape parameter in the range σ = 1-2. It substantially contributes to observed age-dependences of hazard ratios and may lead to underestimation of hazard ratios by a factor of about two. Therefore, analysis of studies for primary CHD risk assessment should account for unobserved heterogeneity.
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.