Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38938862›Full record

ArticleJACC. Advances2024

Association of Life's Essential 8 and Simple 7 Scores With Mortality: Comparison With Pooled Cohort Equation.

Naman S Shetty, Mokshad Gaonkar, Nirav Patel, Peng Li, Garima Arora, Pankaj Arora

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Naman S ShettyDivision of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Mokshad GaonkarDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Nirav PatelDivision of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Peng LiSchool of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Garima AroraDivision of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Pankaj AroraDivision of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In 2022, the Life's Simple 7 (LS7) score was replaced with the Life's Essential 8 (LE8) score as a tool to measure cardiovascular health. The risk prediction values of LE8 and LS7 scores for mortality have not been compared. Additionally, the risk prediction value of these scores has not been compared with the pooled cohort equations (PCE) in individuals aged 40 to 79 years. Objectives: This study compared the risk prediction value of the: 1) LE8 and LS7 scores in the overall population; and 2) LE8 score, LS7 score, and PCE in the 40- to 79-year-old age group for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in a nationally representative US population. Methods: The LS7 and LE8 scores and the PCE were calculated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey cycles 2007 to 2018. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were identified by linking the participants to the National Death Index. The C-statistics of the respective weighted Cox models were used to compare the risk prediction value of the standardized scores. Results: Among 21,721 individuals included, the C-statistics for all-cause mortality were 0.823 (95% CI: 0.803-0.843) and 0.819 (95% CI: 0.799-0.838) in the LE8 and LS7 score-based models, respectively. The C-statistics for cardiovascular mortality were 0.887 (95% CI: 0.857-0.905) for the LE8 score-based model and 0.883 (95% CI: 0.861-0.905) for the LS7 score-based model. Among 12,943 individuals aged 40 to 79 years, the C-statistics for the outcome of all-cause mortality were 0.756 (95% CI: 0.732-0.779), 0.674 (95% CI: 0.646-0.701), and 0.681 (95% CI: 0.656-0.706) for the PCE, LS7 score, and LE8 score-based models, respectively. Conclusions: The LS7 and LE8 scores had similar risk prediction values for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Among 40- to 79-year-old individuals, the PCE had better risk discrimination in the LE8 and LS7 scores in predicting all-cause mortality.

Indexed as

Life’s Essential 8 scoreLife’s Simple 7 scoremortalityrisk reclassification

Identifiers

PMID38938862
PMCPMC11198692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.