ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
External validation and recalibration of office- and laboratory-based cardiovascular risk scores for prediction of 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in 112,262 adults in Mexico City.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in Latin America, yet most CVD risk prediction models were developed in high-income countries with limited validations in these settings.
objectivesTo externally validate CVD risk prediction models for 10-year fatal CVD, and recalibrate the Globorisk-fatal model in Mexican population.
methodsWe analyzed 112,262 adults ≥40 years from the Mexico City Prospective Study. Outcomes were restricted to fatal CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, censored at 10 years. CVD risk was estimated using the laboratory- and office-based Framingham, Globorisk, Globorisk-LAC, WHO, and SCORE2 equations. Discrimination was assessed with Harrell's c-statistic and AUROCs, calibration with mean estimates, slopes, and calibration curves, and overall performance with Brier scores. Sex-specific recalibration of the Globorisk-fatal model was performed using observed 10-year risks.
resultsDuring 10 years of follow-up, 2,429 fatal CVD events were recorded (1,667 MI, 762 stroke). All models showed good discrimination, with c-statistics ranging from 0.761-0.805 in men and 0.797-0.831 in women. The Globorisk-fatal model had the highest c-statistic in women (0.831, 95%CI 0.821-0.841), and the laboratory-based WHO-MI model in men (0.805, 95%CI 0.783-0.827). Despite this, all equations consistently overestimated CVD risk, particularly in women. Calibration analyses revealed systematic overprediction at higher risk levels, more pronounced in men. Recalibration of the Globorisk-fatal model improved agreement between predicted and observed risks, reducing overestimation.
conclusionsCVD risk models showed good discrimination but consistently overestimated risk in this Mexican cohort. The recalibrated Globorisk-fatal model improves risk estimation of fatal CVD in Mexican adults.
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.