ArticleCJC open2026
Initial Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment in Nonclinical Settings: Framingham-Simplified Model Predictive Performance in a Canadian Cohort.
Article in CJC open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Framingham risk model is recommended for estimating 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in Canada. Its simplified version (Framingham-SP) replaces lipids with body mass index, eliminating the need for laboratory testing. The predictive performance of the Framingham-SP in Canada is unknown. This external validation study assessed the discrimination and calibration of the Framingham-SP model in a prospective cohort from Quebec, Canada. Methods: The study sample included 3692 women and 3671 men free of CVD at baseline (1999-2001; follow-up until 2011). Incident CVD events were identified using medico-administrative databases. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data. Discrimination was assessed using C-statistics. Calibration was evaluated using calibration-in-the-large, absolute difference, and discordance. Results: Over the 10-year follow-up, 211 CVD events occurred among women and 453 occurred among men. For women, the predicted 10-year CVD risk was 4.07% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.94-4.20), and the observed risk was 5.72% (95% CI: 5.01-6.51). The C-statistic was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.68-0.76). For men, the predicted risk was 11.73% (95% CI: 11.44-12.02), and the observed risk was 12.34% (95% CI: 11.32-13.44). The C-statistic was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69-0.74). Overall, calibration was lower among women, particularly those in intermediate and high predicted risk categories. Conclusions: The Framingham-SP model demonstrated acceptable predictive performance in this Canadian cohort. Its simplified format may help support preliminary CVD risk assessment and lifestyle counselling, including in nonclinical settings, while remaining complementary to guideline-based clinical evaluation. Recalibration may improve performance among high-risk women.
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.