ArticleMolecular psychiatry2026
A five-year risk prediction model of cardiovascular disease in individuals with bipolar disorder: a nationwide register study from Sweden.
Article in Molecular psychiatry, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction models for the general population may not provide accurate predictions in individuals with bipolar disorder (BD) who have elevated risks of cardiometabolic conditions and premature mortality. Therefore, we aimed to: 1) develop a five-year CVD risk prediction model in this population by using nationwide register data from Sweden, 2) investigate whether the performance improved when we considered additional risk factors, including psychiatric comorbidity, psychotropic medication, and socio-demographic variables, compared to using established CVD risk factors only, and 3) whether machine learning approach provided improvements compared to standard logistic regression models. We followed 33,933 persons with BD aged 30-82 years old, without previous CVD, from the date of BD diagnosis registered between 2007-2014, for up to five years. The logistic regression model containing only established risk factors yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.74-0.78) in the test dataset, while the logistic regression model and the best performing machine learning model including additional predictors yielded similar results (AUC was 0.77 (0.75, 0.79) in both models). The performance of logistic regression models slightly improved with additional predictors when continuous risk scores were used. In conclusion, standard logistic regression and established CVD risk factors may be sufficient to predict CVD in individuals with BD when using population register-based data from Sweden. External validation across diverse healthcare settings and rigorous assessment of clinical impact will be crucial next steps before implementing these models in clinical practice.
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.