ArticleFrontiers in physiology2024
Sex-specific cardiovascular risk factors in the UK Biobank.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2024. 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.
- Representation of women in cardiovascular disease management: a systematic analysis of ESC guidelines.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- Unveiling sex dimorphism in the healthy cardiac anatomy: Fundamental differences between male and female heart shapes.The Journal of physiology · 2026Article
- Multicenter evaluation of prognostic nutritional index and systemic immune-inflammation index in predicting mortality among critically ill cardiovascular and cerebrovascular patients with varied glucose metabolism: a machine learning-based cohort study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
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
The lack of sex-specific cardiovascular disease criteria contributes to the underdiagnosis of women compared to that of men. For more than half a century, the Framingham Risk Score has been the gold standard to estimate an individual's risk of developing cardiovascular disease based on the age, sex, cholesterol levels, blood pressure, diabetes status, and the smoking status. Now, machine learning can offer a much more nuanced insight into predicting the risk of cardiovascular diseases. The UK Biobank is a large database that includes traditional risk factors and tests related to the cardiovascular system: magnetic resonance imaging, pulse wave analysis, electrocardiograms, and carotid ultrasounds. Here, we leverage 20,542 datasets from the UK Biobank to build more accurate cardiovascular risk models than the Framingham Risk Score and quantify the underdiagnosis of women compared to that of men. Strikingly, for a first-degree atrioventricular block and dilated cardiomyopathy, two conditions with non-sex-specific diagnostic criteria, our study shows that women are under-diagnosed 2× and 1.4× more than men. Similarly, our results demonstrate the need for sex-specific criteria in essential primary hypertension and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Our feature importance analysis reveals that out of the top 10 features across three sexes and four disease categories, traditional Framingham factors made up between 40% and 50%; electrocardiogram, 30%-33%; pulse wave analysis, 13%-23%; and magnetic resonance imaging and carotid ultrasound, 0%-10%. Improving the Framingham Risk Score by leveraging big data and machine learning allows us to incorporate a wider range of biomedical data and prediction features, enhance personalization and accuracy, and continuously integrate new data and knowledge, with the ultimate goal to improve accurate prediction, early detection, and early intervention in cardiovascular disease management. Our analysis pipeline and trained classifiers are freely available at https://github.com/LivingMatterLab/CardiovascularDiseaseClassification.
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.