ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2026
Cardiovascular risk stratification without recalibration: A comparative study of the PREVENT and WHO risk scores in a multiethnic Brazilian cohort.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Review
- AJPC 2025 in review: A year of growth & clearer mandate for actionable prevention.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Mapping and evaluation of global and country-specific cardiovascular disease risk prediction models.Future cardiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Models predicting ASCVD risk often overestimate risk in diverse populations from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), limiting their clinical utility and efficiency of resource allocation. Methods: We evaluated the performance of the PREVENT score in a large, multiethnic, population-based cohort of adults without baseline ASCVD, followed prospectively for adjudicated cardiovascular events. Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and calibration was evaluated by predicted-to-observed (P/O) risk ratios. We compared PREVENT with the 2019 WHO cardiovascular risk score, a model specifically recalibrated for use in LMICs, and assessed reclassification using the net reclassification index (NRI), scaling the 10-year risk to 5-year estimates using exponential survival transformation. Additionally, we examined how risk reclassification would affect recommendations for preventive therapy. Results: Among 11,077 participants (age 53.1 ± 8.1 years, 55.3% female), 157 ASCVD events occurred over five years. Discrimination was similar for PREVENT (AUC 0.76, 95 % CI: 0.72-0.80) and WHO (0.75, 95 % CI: 0.71-0.78). PREVENT had better calibration (P/O 1.21 [1.07-1.51] vs. 1.57 [1.31-2.46] for WHO) and improved risk classification (NRI 0.19). This improvement was more pronounced among women (NRI = 0.24) and Black or mixed-race individuals (NRI = 0.28). In adults aged 40-75 with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor, the PREVENT model appropriately up-classified more individuals who had an event to the group for which there is a recommendation for preventive treatment. Conclusions: PREVENT demonstrated better alignment between predicted and observed ASCVD risk compared with the WHO score in a large, diverse LMIC cohort. Its higher out-of-the-box calibration may enable more accurate risk stratification and efficient resource allocation in LMICs.
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.