ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2025
Prevalence of American heart association's ¨ Life's Essential 8¨ in a cohort of Latino women.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polygenic Risk Based Detection and Treatment of Subclinical Coronary Atherosclerosis in the PROACT Clinical Trials.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2026Trial
- Model Analysis of the American Heart Association's Life's Essential 8: Can Physical Activity Mitigate Cardiovascular Risk Among Low-Income Individuals?Journal of the American Heart Association · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) construct has recently been updated to ¨ Life's Essential 8¨(LE8). Objective: to determine LE8's prevalence and its association with sociodemographic and socioeconomic determinants in a Latino women cohort in Santiago de Chile. Methods: Cross-sectional study on 619 women between 35 and 70 years old, representing 1.359.509 women (after expansion factors). LE8 was assessed through a survey on demographic and CV risk factors, as well as anthropometric, blood pressure, and biochemical measurements. The overall LE8 score was estimated for all participants, ranging from 0 to 100 (≥80 points, high CVH and < 50 points, low CVH). Besides, the score for each metric was determined. A descriptive analysis was performed with sample weights for the overall sample, and stratified by age, education, family income level and civil status. A regression analysis was performed adjusted by age group, family income and education level to determine the association of sociodemographic variables with LE8 score. Results: The mean overall LE8 score was 62.7 points. Only 11.5 % had a high LE8, while 18.2 % had a low score. The best-accomplished metrics were blood glucose and physical activity (PA); the worst were diet and nicotine exposure. The adjusted regression analysis showed significantly higher scores for younger age (+3.2 points for <45yo, p < 0.05) and higher education level (+5 points, p < 0.01 and +12 points, p = 0.000,1 for high school and tertiary education, respectively). Higher LE8 scores in women with high education level were significantly driven by improvements in 5 metrics (lipids, blood pressure, body mass index, diet and PA). Conclusion: Nearly 1 out of 9 women from Santiago had an ideal LE8 score. Years of education are crucial determinants in the fight to get an ideal CVH.
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.