ArticleScientific reports2024
Steps to developing a DXA-based risk score for cardiovascular outcomes among older adults: the health, aging, and body composition study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Can Clinical Biomarkers Guide Optimal Therapeutic Selection in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus? A Scoping Review.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025Article
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
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major chronic disease worldwide and its risk factors have long been investigating in epidemiological studies. Our study aims to develop a body composition-based risk score and integrate it into the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) to improve CVD prediction among well-functioning older adults. We included 1882 older adults from the Health, Aging and Body Composition (Health ABC) study to screen body composition variables obtained from the Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Three models were developed and compared: the 4-DXA model, the refit FRS, and the refit FRS plus 4-DXA model. C-statistics were 0.62 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.65) for the refit FRS, 0.58 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.61) for the 4-DXA model, and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.66) for the refit FRS plus 4-DXA model. Compared to the refit FRS, the refit FRS plus 4-DXA model slightly improved CVD outcome prediction as the discrimination slope, net reclassification index, and the integrated discrimination index were 0.053 (95% CI: 0.041, 0.066), 0.098 (95% CI = - 0.0033, 0.20) and 0.013 (95% CI: 0.0069-0.019). This study provides a model for more accurate risk stratification and draws more attention on DXA-based indices in the clinical setting. It also encourages further research in validating the developed risk score in more diverse population and in investigating a broader range of CVD risk factors.
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.