ArticleScientific reports2026
Exploring hemodynamic measurements from the Tromsø Study for prediction of cardiovascular disease using traditional statistical models and machine learning approaches.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In Norway, NORRISK2 is the government-recommended risk model for predicting an individual's 10-year probability of getting cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aims to investigate the potential for improvement of CVD prediction by using hemodynamic measurements from a non-invasive beat-to-beat blood pressure monitor, taken as part of pain sensitivity assessment with the cold-pressor test (CPT) during the Tromsø6 Study (2007-2008). Using 6694 recordings, ultra-short-term pulse rate variability (PRV) and baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) obtained during the CPT were added as additional variables into the existing NORRISK2 survival model (extended model). In addition, the time-series data was used in a machine learning (ML) model without the NORRISK2 background variables. Both models were compared to a recalibration of the original NORRISK2 model. The predictions from the recalibrated NORRISK2 model and the ML model were then combined with logistic regression. The statistical models performed similarly on the test set, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.8 (95% CI: 0.71-0.86), 0.79 (0.71-0.85) and 0.77 (0.69-0.84) (original, recalibrated and extended NORRISK2, respectively). The ML model using only hemodynamic measurements obtained a test set AUROC of 0.73 (0.67-0.80). Combining the NORRISK2 and ML model did not increase the AUROC. Adding ultra-short-term PRV and BRS derived from Tromsø6 did not improve the prediction of the NORRISK2 model either. Although with lower accuracy, the beat-to-beat time series of hemodynamic variables from a CPT had a significant (p < 0.01) ability to predict future CVD without any other person-specific data.
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.