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.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Future promise, current clinical ambiguity: a systematic review of machine learning algorithm outputs predicting risk of cardiovascular disease.Open heart · 2026Pooled it
- Interpreting subclinical atherosclerosis in children with nephrotic syndrome: beyond between-group differences.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- Application of a Pediatric Tracheostomy-Specific Risk Tier System Using Administrative Data.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2026Article
- Predictive Value of the ALBI Grade for Short-Term Morbidity and Mortality After Pancreatoduodenectomy.Cancers · 2026Article
- Three-year cardiovascular risk prediction among people who use cocaine or methamphetamine.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2026Article
- The emerging potential of the psycho-cardiovascular interaction network in precision medicine.Precision clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Operationalizing AI-Enabled Cardiovascular Biomarkers: A Clinician-Centered Framework for Validation, Governance, and Workflow Integration.JMIR cardio · 2026Article
- Cardiac Myosin-Binding Protein C in Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome: From Sarcomeric Injury Biology to Decision-Grade Risk Stratification.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Gene-Air Pollution Interaction in Cardiovascular Disease: Lights and Shadows in a Tangled Risk Factor Network.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Centroid Regression for Preoperative Risk Assessment of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Based on Multivariate Clinical Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- [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 · 2026Article
- Lifestyle intervention to reduce cardiovascular risk in kidney transplant recipients: the KT-LIFESTYLE multicentre randomized controlled trial.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Article
- Residual HIV activity and host immunometabolic remodeling during antiretroviral therapy: implications for cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic risk.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Development and Internal Validation of a Diagnostic Nomogram for Identifying Left Atrial Enlargement in Patients with Essential Hypertension.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Machine learning and multi-omics technologies for precision cardiovascular medicine: advancing diagnosis, risk prediction, and therapeutic guidance.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- The oral-vascular axis: immune mechanisms linking periodontal dysbiosis to systemic vascular pathology.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
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
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.