SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Characteristics of Cardiovascular Disease Prediction Models Considering Mental Disorders: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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.
- Beyond Traditional Risk Factors: The Role of Mental Health and Intersectionality in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction Models.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrognostic models for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk have commonly included predictors such as cholesterol levels. Mental disorders are robust predictors of CVD and associated mortality, leading to approximately 2-fold increases in risk. This systematic review aimed to narratively summarize the key characteristics, strengths, and limitations of all CVD prediction models that consider mental disorders.
methodsA literature search with medical subject headings/key terms related to CVD, mental disorders and prognostic modeling was conducted in Medline and EMBASE. Included studies were: cohort studies of CVD prediction model development, validation, or recalibration that included mental disorders as prognostic factors/covariate(s), or the population of interest. All studies were screened by 2 independent reviewers, followed by data extraction. The Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool was used to critically appraise bias. A narrative synthesis was used to summarize mental disorder and sociodemographic factor/intersectionality inclusion.
resultsThere were 31 unique models identified (n=35 records including external validations). Considering these, 77% included mental disorders as a covariate, whereby depression and/or anxiety were the most considered (71%, n=22 studies). Most models were published within the last 5 years, included measures of socioeconomic status; however, many models lacked intersectionality considerations. Only one study was identified with a low risk of bias, while the majority had analytic concerns.
conclusionsDepression and/or anxiety were the most commonly considered mental disorders in modeling, despite larger associations with CVD for other disorders. Further CVD prediction modeling should consider a broader array of mental disorders, and limit methodological biases.
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.