ArticleJACC. Asia2026
Comparison of ASCVD Risk Prediction Models in STEMI: Insights From a South Asian Cohort.
Article in JACC. Asia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- When Risk Scores Disagree: Rethinking Cardiovascular Risk Prediction in South Asians.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular (CV) risk prediction models guide primary prevention, yet most were derived in Western populations and may not generalize to the South Asian population.
objectivesThe authors aimed to compare risk classification, agreement, and discriminative patterns of major atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk prediction models in first acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
methodsIn this retrospective analysis, 4,975 consecutive patients aged 40 to 79 years presenting with first AMI were evaluated. Pre-event demographics, clinical characteristics, and laboratory data were extracted from outpatient records. Ten-year pre-event CV risk was calculated using 5 prediction models: Framingham Risk Score (FRS), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ASCVD 2013, World Health Organization (WHO) CVD charts, Joint British Societies' cardiovascular risk score version 3 (JBS-3), and PREVENT equations. Patients were categorized as low (<7.5%), intermediate (7.5% to <20%), or high (≥20%) risk. Statistical analyses included Pearson correlation, intraclass correlation, weighted Cohen's kappa, and repeated-measures generalized linear modeling with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons.
resultsPREVENT classified 19.8% of patients as high risk, compared with 20.2% using FRS, 15.0% using WHO charts, 11.7% using JBS-3, and 12.3% using ASCVD 2013. PREVENT demonstrated the widest risk distribution (0.2%-91%). Agreement between PREVENT and other models was poor (κ = 0.228; 95% CI: 0.204-0.252 with ASCVD, κ = 0.311; 95% CI: 0.288-0.33 with FRS, and κ = 0.063; 95% CI: 0.038-0.088 with WHO), despite moderate positive correlations.
conclusionsMajor CV risk algorithms classify Indian AMI patients very differently, with substantial potential for misclassification. Although PREVENT and FRS showed nearly similar classification of high risk, 80% of patients were still not identified as high risk before their event, underscoring the need for South Asia-specific risk score development and validation and alternative preventive strategies.
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.