ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2025
Validation of ARIC heart failure risk score in an Asian population: Results from the CORE-Thailand registry.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2025. 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.
- Population-specific risk models and AI in clinical practice: Are we ready for the next step in managing common disorders?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Atherosclerotic Risk in Communities (ARIC) heart failure (HF) score was originally developed in the USA to predict new-onset HF. Our goal was to validate the ARIC-HF score and develop a new score to predict HF in an Asian population.
methodsThe Cohort Of patients with high Risk for cardiovascular Events (CORE-Thailand) was a prospective registry of Thai patients with high atherosclerotic risk. Patients were followed for 5 years for HF events. The ARIC-HF score was applied to predict HF. The new ARIC-CORE score was developed by re-estimating the coefficients of ARIC score variables using ridge regression. The discrimination and calibration of the models were assessed. The net reclassification index (NRI) was used to compare the prediction performance between the models. Clinical utility was assessed with a decision curve analysis.
resultsFrom a total of 8,919 patients, 185 (2.1 %) developed HF. The ARIC-HF score and ARIC-CORE HF risk score provided good discrimination with C-statistics of 0.710, (95 % confidence interval (CI); 0.673-0.747) and 0.75, (95 % CI; 0.715-0.785), respectively. Both models showed a good calibration. Using the ARIC-CORE HF score was associated with an improved reclassification of HF (NRI 0.369, 95 % CI; 0.286-0.551) compared to the ARIC-HF score. The net clinical benefit of the ARIC-CORE HF score was higher than the ARIC-HF score in the decision curve analysis.
conclusionThe ARIC-HF score performed well in predicting heart failure in the CORE population. The ARIC-CORE HF score showed superior predictive ability and clinical benefit. Further research is needed to validate these models in diverse Asian populations.
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.