ArticleCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2026
Association of Original and Revised Pooled Cohort Equations With Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Mortality.
Article in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association of Original and Revised Pooled Cohort Equations With Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Mortality.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular (CVD) and cerebrovascular diseases (CeVD) are leading causes of mortality. The Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) are widely used for ASCVD risk prediction, but face calibration concerns, particularly in diverse populations. The Revised Pooled Cohort Equations (RPCE) were developed to address these limitations. While prior research has evaluated these models for ASCVD, less is known about their performance for CVD and CeVD mortality outcomes.
objectiveThis study aimed to comprehensively compare the association of PCE and RPCE with CVD mortality and combined CVD and CeVD mortality, including subgroup analyses by race and gender, within a nationally representative US adult population.
methodsWe analyzed 16,584 primary prevention participants (aged 40-79 years) from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2018), linked to National Death Index mortality data. We calculated 10-year ASCVD risk using both PCE and RPCE. Bland-Altman plots assessed score agreement. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association of standardized PCE and RPCE scores with CVD and combined CVD and CeVD mortality, adjusting for confounders and stratifying by race and gender.
resultsBoth PCE and RPCE were significantly associated with CVD mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for PCE: 1.91 [95% CI: 1.82-2.01]; RPCE: 1.65 [95% CI: 1.59-1.72]) and combined CVD and CeVD mortality (adjusted HR for PCE: 1.91 [95% CI: 1.82-2.00]; RPCE: 1.65 [95% CI: 1.60-1.72]). Bland-Altman analyses revealed PCE consistently overestimated risk compared to RPCE, with differences increasing at higher risk levels. RPCE demonstrated improved calibration, especially in racially diverse populations, where PCE overestimation was more pronounced.
conclusionBoth PCE and RPCE are robust prognostic tools for vascular mortality. However, RPCE offers improved calibration, particularly in racially diverse populations, by providing more conservative yet comparably predictive risk estimates. These findings highlight the importance of selecting risk models tailored to target populations to optimize prevention and avoid potential overtreatment.
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.