ArticleCirculation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology2025
Validation of a Novel Risk Prediction Score for Sudden Cardiac Death in the Framingham Heart Study.
Article in Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic Risk Trajectories for Sudden Cardiac Arrest: The Role of Recurrent Cardiovascular Events.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Observational
- Line-of-Duty Deaths Among Firefighters in Poland: A Retrospective Observational Study of Mortality Differences Between Career and Volunteer Firefighters.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Identification of a plasma proteomic signature associated with sudden cardiac death risk in the UK biobank.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Modifiable lifestyle factors and sudden cardiac death: mechanisms, evidence, and prevention strategies.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Beyond cardiac risk factors: non-cardiovascular comorbidities in sudden cardiac death prediction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Anticholinergic medications and out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest: a new piece to the puzzle?European heart journal · 2025Article
- Dynamic Risk Trajectories for Sudden Cardiac Arrest: The Role of Recurrent Cardiovascular Events.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe have previously reported a novel clinical risk score (risk prediction score for shockable sudden cardiac arrest [VFRisk]) for the prediction of shockable sudden cardiac arrest, discovered and validated in 2 US west coast communities. We hypothesized that VFRisk predicts sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk in the geographically distinct FHS (Framingham Heart Study).
methodsWe performed a nested case-referents study in the FHS to test VFRisk. Cases were participants who experienced SCD among the original and offspring FHS cohorts. Referents were randomly selected from FHS participants frequency-matched (ratio of 1:3) to cases on age, sex, cohort, and exam. VFRisk was the sum of 12 risk factors, each multiplied by its respective points.
resultsAmong 312 cases and 935 referents, mean ages were 69.5 and 69.7 years with 70.8% men in both groups. SCD cases had significantly higher prevalence of diabetes, heart failure, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and myocardial infarction compared with the referents group. The VFRisk score was validated with good discrimination (C-statistic, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.66-0.77]) for SCD. Cases had higher VFRisk scores than referents (3.8±2.8 versus 1.8±1.7;
conclusionsThe VFRisk score successfully predicted SCD in the FHS. The differences in discrimination between the 2 studies could partially be explained by the inability to distinguish shockable versus nonshockable events in the FHS.
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.