ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2026
Understanding the impact of sleep on cardiovascular risk estimation: comparison of LS7 and LE8 performances in a European population.
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. 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
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
Background: Tools like Life's Simple 7 (LS7) can help estimate the risk of cardiovascular events in healthy subjects. Recently, the Life's Essential 8 (LE8) was developed, including sleep as an additional variable for a more precise cardiovascular risk estimation. However, it is unclear whether such an increase in complexity is associated with an improvement in the score's performance. We aimed to test the LS7 and LE8 in a European cohort in order to understand whether adding subjective sleep information could allow a better cardiovascular risk stratification. Methods: UK Biobank data were used for computing the cardiovascular scores. Sleep duration was evaluated through questionnaires. The cardiovascular outcomes were fatal and non-fatal CVD events. Multivariable-adjusted logistic and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate associations of the different metrics with CVD prevalence and incidence. The c-statistic was used to quantify differences in incident CVD discrimination. Results: A cohort of 106,724 participants (mean age: 55.9 years, 55% males) included 6,130 prevalent and 11,575 incident CVD events (mean follow-up: 12.9 ± 2.7 years). CVH metrics were categorised into tertiles. LS7- and LE8-based metrics effectively characterised prevalent and incident CVD events. LS7 models had similar C-statistics with (0.705, 95% CI: 0.701-0.709) and without (0.706, 95% CI: 0.702-0.710) sleep data. LE8 without sleep (0.708, 95% CI: 0.704-0.712) outperformed LS7 without sleep by 0.002 (95% CI: 0.001-0.003, p < 0.05). However, standard LE8 with sleep (0.706, 95% CI: 0.702-0.710) showed no significant difference from LS7. Conclusions: In a European cohort, LS7 and LE8 are useful tools for risk stratification. However, despite the LE8 offering marginally better risk stratification than LS7, the inclusion of subjective sleep did not provide a tangible advantage.
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.