ArticleScientific reports2025
External validity of cardiovascular risk assessment tools in individuals with MASLD (NAFLD): a cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular Complications of Chronic Liver Disease.Circulation · 2026Review
- Comparison of FINDRISC and the Framingham Model for Predicting CHD Risk: Results from the Kharameh Cohort Study.Vascular health and risk management · 2026Article
- Link between Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease and Cardiovascular Diseases.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study was conducted to evaluate the external validity of various cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment tools in predicting CVD events among individuals with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). The Amol prospective cohort study spanned a follow-up period of seven years, from 2009 to 2010 to 2016-2017. A total of 1,431 individuals aged 40-75 years were included. The 10-year cardiovascular risk was estimated for each participant using four risk assessment tools: the Pooled Cohort Equations of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) equations, the Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Profile, and the SCORE2 equations. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the discrimination ability of these tools. The ACC/AHA tool demonstrated the highest predictive ability for both fatal CVD events (AUC: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88-0.97 for men; AUC: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.79-0.96 for women) and composite CVD events (AUC: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.62-0.75 for men; AUC: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72-0.85 for women). Based on these findings, cardiovascular risk assessment tools, particularly the ACC/AHA tool, can be applied in clinical settings to evaluate the future risk of CVD events in women with MASLD. However, the SCORE equations also exhibited excellent predictive ability for fatal cardiac events, requiring fewer variables.
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.