ArticleJACC. Asia2026
Validation and Recalibration of PCE, China-PAR, and PREVENT Models for Estimating ASCVD Risk in China.
Article in JACC. Asia, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) and Prediction for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) Risk in China (China-PAR) models tend to overestimate risk, whereas the Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) equations may underestimate risk in many contemporary cohorts.
objectivesThis study aimed to validate and determine if recalibration of these risk scores using contemporary population-level data improves risk stratification for primary prevention in China.
methodsThese risk scores were first validated and then recalibrated in the Kailuan study. Participants aged 40 to 79 years without ASCVD at baseline were included. Original and recalibrated models were assessed for discrimination and calibration.
resultsOf 79,497 participants, 4,425 ASCVD events occurred over a median follow-up of 10 years (Q1-Q3: 10-10 years). All 3 original models showed good discrimination in women (Harrell's C-index: PCE 0.735 [95% CI: 0.712-0.757], China-PAR 0.738 [95% CI: 0.715-0.760], PREVENT 0.737 [95% CI: 0.713-0.759]) and moderate discrimination in men (PCE 0.675 [95% CI: 0.667-0.683], China-PAR 0.685 [95% CI: 0.677-0.693], and PREVENT 0.685 [95% CI: 0.677-0.693]). Original models showed differential mean calibration in 10-year ASCVD risk estimation: PCE overestimated by 34.9% (men [95% CI: 32.8%-36.9%]) and 15.1% (women [95% CI: 6.8%-22.7%]); China-PAR by 17.7% (men [95% CI: 15.1%-20.2%]) and 48.2% (women [95% CI: 43.1%-52.8%]); PREVENT underestimated by 29.4% (men [95% CI: 25.4%-33.5%]) and 2.7% (women [95% CI: -6.5% to 12.8%]). After recalibrating to the local population, observed vs predicted risks exhibited improved alignment for the recalibrated models.
conclusionsIn this Chinese cohort, the original PCE and China-PAR overestimated 10-year ASCVD risk, whereas PREVENT underestimated it. Recalibration mitigated such misestimation in the local population, potentially enhancing risk stratification in primary cardiovascular prevention in China.
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.