ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2026
Model-Dependent Cardiovascular Risk Stratification in Obese Populations: Multicenter Study in Türkiye.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 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
40 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular risk prediction models are essential for preventive cardiology; however, most were developed in populations with limited representation of individuals with severe obesity. Given the high prevalence of obesity in Türkiye and its strong association with cardiometabolic disorders, uncertainty exists regarding the applicability and agreement of contemporary cardiovascular risk estimation tools in this population. This study aimed to compare cardiovascular risk estimates derived from SCORE2, SCORE2-DM, and AHA PREVENT models across geographical regions in a large obese cohort from Türkiye, and to formally evaluate inter-model agreement and confounder-adjusted regional differences. Methods: This multicenter retrospective analysis included 6,378 obese individuals recruited from seven geographical regions of Türkiye. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, anthropometric measurements, and laboratory data were obtained from standardized electronic medical records. Ten-year cardiovascular risk was estimated, rather than prospectively predicted, using SCORE2, SCORE2-DM, and AHA PREVENT equations. Regional comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and chi-square analysis. Inter-model agreement was assessed using Spearman correlation, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, and linear-weighted Cohen's kappa for guideline-based risk strata. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate regional differences after adjustment for age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, statin use, and body mass index. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results: Substantial regional heterogeneity was observed in smoking prevalence, cardiometabolic comorbidities, and medication use. Cardiovascular risk estimates differed according to the selected prediction model: SCORE2 identified the highest median risk in Mediterranean and Southeastern Anatolia, SCORE2-DM demonstrated relatively homogeneous risk estimates across regions, and PREVENT showed greater regional discrimination, identifying the highest risk in the Aegean region and the lowest risk in Eastern and Central Anatolia. SCORE2 and PREVENT showed strong rank-order agreement (Spearman Conclusion: Cardiovascular risk estimation in obese individuals is highly sensitive to the choice of prediction model and regional population characteristics. Although the three contemporary models rank patients similarly, their absolute risk estimates and categorical risk classifications can diverge substantially, particularly in obese patients with diabetes. Because this analysis is based on model-derived estimates rather than observed cardiovascular outcomes, our findings should be interpreted as descriptive risk estimation rather than validated risk prediction. These findings highlight the importance of cautious interpretation of risk scores and emphasize the need for outcome-based, population-specific validation of cardiovascular risk prediction tools in high-risk obese 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.