ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Development and validation of a cardiovascular diseases risk prediction model for Chinese males (CVDMCM).
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Future promise, current clinical ambiguity: a systematic review of machine learning algorithm outputs predicting risk of cardiovascular disease.Open heart · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiovascular Disease Prediction Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies.Health science reports · 2026Review
- GPER1/ACACB are potential target genes associated with intracranial aneurysm and vascular endothelial cell senescence.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Death due to cardiovascular diseases (CVD) increased significantly in China. One possible way to reduce CVD is to identify people at risk and provide targeted intervention. We aim to develop and validate a CVD risk prediction model for Chinese males (CVDMCM) to help clinicians identify those males at risk of CVD and provide targeted intervention. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2,331 Chinese males without CVD at baseline to develop and internally validate the CVDMCM. These participants had a baseline physical examination record (2008-2016) and at least one revisit record by September 2019. With the full cohort, we conducted three models: A model with Framingham CVD risk model predictors; a model with predictors selected by univariate cox proportional hazard model adjusted for age; and a model with predictors selected by LASSO algorithm. Among them, the optimal model, CVDMCM, was obtained based on the Akaike information criterion, the Brier's score, and Harrell's C statistic. Then, CVDMCM, the Framingham CVD risk model, and the Wu's simplified model were all validated and compared. All the validation was carried out by bootstrap resampling strategy (TRIPOD statement type 1b) with the full cohort with 1,000 repetitions. Results: CVDMCM's Harrell's C statistic was 0.769 (95% CI: 0.738-0.799), and D statistic was 4.738 (95% CI: 3.270-6.864). The results of Harrell's C statistic, D statistic and calibration plot demonstrated that CVDMCM outperformed the Framingham CVD model and Wu's simplified model for 4-year CVD risk prediction. Conclusions: We developed and internally validated CVDMCM, which predicted 4-year CVD risk for Chinese males with a better performance than Framingham CVD model and Wu's simplified model. In addition, we developed a web calculator-calCVDrisk for physicians to conveniently generate CVD risk scores and identify those males with a higher risk of CVD.
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.