ArticleCardiovascular research2024
Sex inequalities in cardiovascular risk prediction.
Article in Cardiovascular research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular disease in women: traditional and sex-specific risk factors.European heart journal · 2026Review
- Sex Differences in Lipids and Lipoproteins and Their Relationship With Cardiovascular Disease: A Prospective Study of UK Biobank Participants.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Sex differences in the progression of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome.European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Prognostic Significance of Circulating Biomarkers of End Organ Damage in Hypertension.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsEvaluate sex differences in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction, including use of (i) optimal sex-specific risk predictors and (ii) sex-specific risk thresholds. METHODS AND
resultsProspective cohort study using UK Biobank, including 121 724 and 182 632 healthy men and women, respectively, aged 38-73 years at baseline. There were 11 899 (men) and 9110 (women) incident CVD cases (hospitalization or mortality) with a median of 12.1 years of follow-up. We used recalibrated pooled cohort equations (PCEs; 7.5% 10-year risk threshold as per US guidelines), QRISK3 (10% 10-year risk threshold as per UK guidelines), and Cox survival models using sparse sex-specific variable sets (via LASSO stability selection) to predict CVD risk separately in men and women. LASSO stability selection included 12 variables in common between men and women, with 3 additional variables selected for men and 1 for women. C-statistics were slightly lower for PCE than QRISK3 and models using stably selected variables, but were similar between men and women: 0.67 (0.66-0.68), 0.70 (0.69-0.71), and 0.71 (0.70-0.72) in men and 0.69 (0.68-0.70), 0.72 (0.71-0.73), and 0.72 (0.71-0.73) in women for PCE, QRISK3, and models using stably selected variables, respectively. At current clinically implemented risk thresholds, test sensitivity was markedly lower in women than men for all models: at 7.5% 10-year risk, sensitivity was 65.1 and 68.2% in men and 24.0 and 33.4% in women for PCE and models using stably selected variables, respectively; at 10% 10-year risk, sensitivity was 53.7 and 52.3% in men and 16.8 and 20.2% in women for QRISK3 and models using stably selected variables, respectively. Specificity was correspondingly higher in women than men. However, the sensitivity in women at 5% 10-year risk threshold increased to 50.1, 58.5, and 55.7% for PCE, QRISK3, and models using stably selected variables, respectively.
conclusionUse of sparse sex-specific variables improved CVD risk prediction compared with PCE but not QRISK3. At current risk thresholds, PCE and QRISK3 work less well for women than men, but sensitivity was improved in women using a 5% 10-year risk threshold. Use of sex-specific risk thresholds should be considered in any re-evaluation of CVD risk calculators.
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.