ArticleOpen heart2026
External validation of the SMART2 model for recurrent cardiovascular risk: performance in socioeconomic, ethnic and psychiatric subgroups.
Article in Open heart, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSecondary prevention is critical for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). The SMART2 model predicts recurrent ASCVD risk but does not account for psychiatric disorders, socioeconomic deprivation or ethnicity. We aimed to evaluate SMART2 model performance overall and in subgroups defined by these factors.
methodsSMART2 was externally validated using electronic health records of patients aged 40-80 in the Leiden-The Hague region. Patients hospitalised for cardiovascular disease or coronary interventions between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2021 were included. Model performance was assessed using discrimination (10-year area under ROC curve (AUC)) and calibration (observed/expected (OE) ratios and plots, adjusted for competing risks), both overall and in subgroups defined by three factors: psychiatric history, socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnicity.
resultsAmong 15 528 patients (66% male, mean age 65) with established ASCVD, median follow-up was 6.0 years. Recurrent cardiovascular events occurred in 2220 patients, and 1820 had competing events. Overall AUC was 0.63 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.65). OE ratio was 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.00). The model underestimated risk in patients with low SES (OE 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17) and in non-Western patients (OE 1.16, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.31). Calibration was adequate in patients with psychiatric history, but the model was substantially underestimating for patients with multiple vulnerabilities-combinations of low SES, non-Western ethnicity and psychiatric history-with OE ranging from 1.19 to 1.29, depending on the combination.
conclusionThe SMART2 model is well-calibrated in the general population but underestimates risk, especially in subgroups with multiple vulnerabilities. Patients in these vulnerable subgroups may require intensified monitoring. Clinicians should consider social, ethnic and psychiatric factors when interpreting risk estimates.
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.