Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40329277›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2025

Comparative Discrimination of Life's Simple 7, Life's Essential 8, and Life's Crucial 9: Evaluating the impact of added complexity on mortality prediction.

Xu Zhu, Iokfai Cheang, Yiyang Fu, Sitong Chen, Gengmin Liang, Huaxin Yuan, Ling Zhu, Haifeng Zhang, Xinli Li

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Correspondence: Life' s Essential 8 and cardiovascular health: Protective effects on chronic respiratory diseases.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

9 authors.

Xu Zhu *State Key Laboratory for Innovation and Transformation of Luobing Theory, Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing, 210029, China.
Iokfai Cheang *State Key Laboratory for Innovation and Transformation of Luobing Theory, Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing, 210029, China.
Yiyang FuState Key Laboratory for Innovation and Transformation of Luobing Theory, Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing, 210029, China.
Sitong ChenState Key Laboratory for Innovation and Transformation of Luobing Theory, Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing, 210029, China.
Gengmin LiangState Key Laboratory for Innovation and Transformation of Luobing Theory, Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing, 210029, China.
Huaxin YuanState Key Laboratory for Innovation and Transformation of Luobing Theory, Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing, 210029, China.
Ling ZhuDepartment of Cardiology, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, 256 Youyi West Road, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710000, China. lingzhu2360@163.com.
Haifeng ZhangDepartment of Cardiology, Gusu School, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Suzhou, 215002, China. haifeng_zhang@163.com.
Xinli LiState Key Laboratory for Innovation and Transformation of Luobing Theory, Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing, 210029, China. xinli3267@njmu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiovascular health (CVH) is a key determinant of mortality, but the comparative effectiveness of different CVH metrics remains uncertain. Life's Simple 7 (LS7) evaluates seven domains: smoking, body mass index, physical activity, total cholesterol, blood pressure, fasting glucose, and diet. Life's Essential 8 (LE8) adds sleep health, while Life's Crucial 9 (LC9) further includes mental health. This study aimed to assess whether the additional components in LE8 and LC9 enhance mortality prediction compared to LS7.

methodsData from 22,382 participants in the NHANES 2005-2018 were analyzed. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the associations between the scores of these metrics and all-cause, cardio-cerebrovascular disease (CCD), and CVD mortality. The predictive performance of each metric was assessed via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) values.

resultsThe participants had a mean age of 45.23 ± 0.23 years, and 51.53% were female. During a median follow-up of 7.75 (4.42-11.08) years, there were 1,483 all-cause deaths, 405 CCD deaths, and 337 CVD deaths. Compared with participants with LS7 scores ≤ 4, those with scores ≥ 11 had a 65% (HR = 0.35 [0.25-0.50]) lower risk of all-cause mortality, a 66% (HR = 0.34 [0.16-0.73]) lower risk of CCD mortality, and a 61% (HR = 0.39 [0.18-0.85]) lower risk of CVD mortality. Similar trends were observed for LE8 and LC9. The AUC for LS7 (0.68 [0.66-0.70]) was slightly greater than that for LE8 (0.67 [0.65-0.69], P = 0.007) and LC9 (0.67 [0.65-0.69], P = 0.019) in predicting all-cause mortality at 5 years; however, the overall predictive performance was nearly identical across all three metrics. Furthermore, the addition of LS7 (AUC = 0.84 [0.82-0.86], P < 0.001), LE8 (AUC = 0.84 [0.82-0.86], P < 0.001), and LC9 (AUC = 0.84 [0.83-0.86], P < 0.001) to the baseline model (AUC = 0.83 [0.82-0.85]) significantly improved all-cause mortality predictions at 5 years; however, the actual gains in predictive performance were marginal.

conclusionsLS7, LE8, and LC9 all predict mortality effectively. Given its simpler scoring and fewer components, LS7 demonstrates comparable predictive performance to LE8 and LC9, making it a more practical tool for clinical and public health applications.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesMortalityAdultBlood PressureBody Mass IndexCholesterolDietExerciseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNutrition SurveysCholesterolLife’s Crucial 9Life’s Essential 8Life’s Simple 7MortalityNHANES

Identifiers

PMID40329277
PMCPMC12057148

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.