ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Framingham score adapted: a valid alternative for estimating cardiovascular risk in epidemiological studies.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- UntargetedNutrients · 2026Trial
- An online interpretable machine learning model for predicting cardiometabolic multimorbidity risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Performance of non-laboratory Framingham risk scores using self-reported data for remote cardiovascular risk assessment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Data-driven identification of metabolic and cardiovascular biomarkers in high-altitude workers: a machine learning approach.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- Calcium scoring during 18F-FDG PET/CT in cancer indications: Improving cardiovascular risk stratification and prevention.PloS one · 2025Article
- Mining the risk: early cardiovascular detection in workers.Frontiers in medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFramingham risk score (FRS) is an important cardiovascular risk assessment tool, based on objective measurements of blood pressure and lipid profile, among other factors. However, in large population surveys, these measures are not always available, which limits their use.
objectivesEvaluate the performance of the FRS predictive results using subjective measures. METHODOLOGY: Cross-sectional study of 1,414 male rotating shift workers in an iron ore extraction company. The original FRS was calculated using objective systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements, total cholesterol (TC), and HDL cholesterol. The modified FRS was calculated using subjective measurements of blood pressure and lipid profile, based on self-reported medical diagnosis and use of medications for these conditions. Three adaptations were proposed: (1) FRS-SAH, which considers only self-reported hypertension; (2) FRS-DLP, based solely on self-reported dyslipidemia; and (3) FRS-SAH and DLP, which integrates both self-reported factors. Agreement between the two scores was assessed using the kappa coefficient and the Bland-Altman analysis. The accuracy of the scores in predicting cardiovascular risk was compared using the ROC curve and the area under the curve (AUC).
resultsThe scatter plot showed a strong correlation (r = 0.9036, p < 0.001) between adapted FRS-SAH and original FRS. The ROC curve showed an AUC with results above 0.85 for all models, confirming the effectiveness of the adapted scale. Bland-Altman indicated good precision between the measurements. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that all the factors associated with CVD-risk by the original FRS were similar to those associated with the adapted FRS. Among the adaptations, the FRS-SAH demonstrated the highest correlation and predictive accuracy.
conclusionThe adapted FRS proved to be effective in estimating CVD-risk, showing high correlation, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared to the original FRS. Adaptive FRS based on self-reported hypertension, showed the best performance, making it a reliable alternative for contexts where direct measurements are not feasible.
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.