ArticleJACC. Advances2025
Comparing Life's Simple 7 and Life's Essential 8 With Risk of Heart Failure.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Forensic Perspective of Unintentional Doping, Cardiovascular Health, and the Role of Nutrition in Competitive Sports.Nutrients · 2026Pooled it
- Understanding the impact of sleep on cardiovascular risk estimation: comparison of LS7 and LE8 performances in a European population.American journal of preventive cardiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBetter cardiovascular health (CVH) lowers risk of heart failure (HF). CVH can be quantified using Life's Essential 8 (LE8), a score consisting of 8 health factors and behaviors.
objectivesThe authors assessed the association between LE8 and risk for HF, and compared LE8 with its predecessor, Life's Simple 7 (LS7).
methodsWe included 37,803 participants from the EPIC-NL (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Netherlands) cohort. The LE8 score ranged from 0 to 100 and was categorized into low (0-49), moderate (50-79), and high (80-100) CVH. CVH classification was compared between LS7 and LE8 scoring. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess LE8 score with risk of HF, and CVH reclassification from LS7 to LE8.
resultsParticipants were predominantly female (74%), with a median age of 52 years (Q1-Q3: 42-58). Compared to low CVH (4%), those with high CVH (21%) had an 82% lower risk of developing HF (HR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.12-0.26). CVH classification differed substantially between LE8 and LS7, with 75% vs 36% having moderate CVH, respectively, which could be attributed to an upward shift (90%) of participants from LS7 low CVH to LE8 moderate CVH. A graded, nonlinear association with risk for HF was observed for LE8, especially for moderate CVH scores.
conclusionsLS7 and LE8 differ in scoring and CVH classification. While a strong inverse association exists between LE8 score classification and HF risk, the association is graded over the whole LE8 range, suggesting that nuances may be overlooked when using the proposed CVH classification for exploring HF risk.
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.