ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2021
Development and Validation of Decision Rules Models to Stratify Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes, and Hypertension Risk in Preventive Care: Cohort Study of Returning UK Biobank Participants.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic risk models for incident hypertension: A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Machine learning approaches that use clinical, laboratory, and electrocardiogram data enhance the prediction of obstructive coronary artery disease.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Effect of a Digitally-Enabled, Preventive Health Program on Blood Pressure in an Adult, Dutch General Population Cohort: An Observational Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Observational
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
Abstract
Many predictive models exist that predict risk of common cardiometabolic conditions. However, a vast majority of these models do not include genetic risk scores and do not distinguish between clinical risk requiring medical or pharmacological interventions and pre-clinical risk, where lifestyle interventions could be first-choice therapy. In this study, we developed, validated, and compared the performance of three decision rule algorithms including biomarkers, physical measurements, and genetic risk scores for incident coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes (T2D), and hypertension against commonly used clinical risk scores in 60,782 UK Biobank participants. The rules models were tested for an association with incident CAD, T2D, and hypertension, and hazard ratios (with 95% confidence interval) were calculated from survival models. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and Net Reclassification Index (NRI). The higher risk group in the decision rules model had a 40-, 40.9-, and 21.6-fold increased risk of CAD, T2D, and hypertension, respectively (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.