Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41669831›Full record

ReviewCirculation2026

Criteria to Assess the Predictive and Clinical Utility of Novel Models, Biomarkers, and Tools for Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Sadiya S Khan, Philip Greenland, Laura L Hayman, Rohan Khera, Ann Marie Navar, Michael J Pencina, Nosheen Reza, Svati H Shah, Sujata Shanbhag, Brittany Weber and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Circulation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [Application of biological age for cardiovascular risk prediction in a community-based Chinese cohort].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Sadiya S Khan
Philip Greenland
Laura L Hayman
Rohan Khera
Ann Marie Navar
Michael J Pencina
Nosheen Reza
Svati H Shah
Sujata Shanbhag
Brittany Weber
Sally Wong
Amit Khera
American Heart Association Prevention Science Committee of the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention and Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease

Funding

Improving the Detection of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Using Machine Learning Applied to Electronic Health Record DataK23HL166961 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Nosheen Reza · 2023 to 2026
$691k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL166961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk prediction has been used in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease for >3 decades. Contemporary cardiovascular risk assessment relies on multivariable models, which integrate established cardiovascular risk factors and have evolved over time from the Framingham Risk Model to the pooled cohort equations to the PREVENT (Predicting Risk of CVD Events) equations. Recent scientific (ie, genomics, proteomics, metabolomics) and methodologic (ie, artificial intelligence) advances have led to a proliferation of novel models, biomarkers, and tools for potential use in risk prediction. In parallel, the growing armamentarium of preventive therapies, some with considerable cost, underscores the need for more accurate and precise risk assessment to prioritize those at highest risk who will derive the greatest absolute benefit. Accompanying the considerable enthusiasm for the potential of newer approaches to improve risk prediction is the need for rigorous evaluation and assessment of their performance (ie, accuracy, precision, incremental performance when added to contemporary multivariable risk models or established risk factors) and clinical utility (ie, actionability, scalability, generalizability) before adoption in clinical practice. Additional considerations in risk tool evaluation include reproducibility, cost-value considerations (including impact on downstream health care costs), and implications for health equity. This scientific statement defines a standardized framework for general considerations in risk prediction, statistical assessment of predictive utility, and critical appraisal of clinical utility and readiness. This scientific statement is intended to support clinicians, researchers, and policymakers in how best to evaluate current and emerging risk prediction tools and ultimately improve the prevention of cardiovascular disease in diverse populations.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesAmerican Heart AssociationBiomarkersHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsUnited StatesBiomarkersAHA Scientific Statementsartificial intelligencecardiovascular diseaseomicsprimary preventionrisk

Identifiers

PMID41669831
PMCPMC13067998

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.