ReviewJournal of the American Heart Association2026
From Cardiovascular Risk Prediction to Precision Prevention: Methodological, Contextual, and Implementation Challenges.
Review in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite advances in risk prediction, cardiovascular prevention remains suboptimal, reflecting limitations in model architecture, incomplete integration of contextual determinants, and inadequate translation of risk estimates into clinical practice. This review synthesizes epidemiological, methodological, and health systems evidence published between 2000 and 2025 regarding the performance, evolution, and implementation of cardiovascular risk prediction models. Contemporary risk assessment frameworks remain largely driven by traditional risk factors, and the addition of novel biomarkers or variables has generally produced only modest improvements in discrimination (ΔC-statistic ≈ 0.004-0.007). Alternative approaches, including lifetime risk estimation, competing-risk models, and artificial intelligence-based methods, have expanded analytical capabilities but have not consistently translated into meaningful gains in clinical utility. Moreover, contextual determinants of cardiovascular risk, particularly socioeconomic and environmental exposures, remain inconsistently incorporated, contributing to miscalibration and reduced transportability across populations. Importantly, improvements in risk estimation have not been accompanied by proportional reductions in cardiovascular burden, highlighting persistent gaps between prediction and implementation. These shortcomings reflect not only methodological challenges but also limited integration of risk assessment into clinical workflows and health systems. Future progress in cardiovascular prevention will require risk models that are dynamic, context aware, and closely linked to implementation strategies, ensuring that advances in prediction are translated into effective clinical decision-making and population health benefit.
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.