ArticleChronic diseases and translational medicine2026
Prediction of Prevalent Cardiovascular Disease Using Social, Environmental, and Behavioral Factors: A Vital Conditions Framework Approach.
Article in Chronic diseases and translational 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. We examined whether a model that classifies prevalent CVD using clinical risk factor precursors (social, environmental, and behavioral factors), age, and sex, organized according to the Vital Conditions for Health framework, demonstrates good discrimination and calibration. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed the 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) dataset ( Results: Both LASSO and XGBoost performed well. LASSO achieved an AUC of 0.822 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.815-0.831), with a calibration slope of 1.022 and an O:E ratio of 1.001. XGBoost achieved an AUC of 0.822 (95% CI, 0.814-0.831), with a calibration slope of 1.026 and an O:E ratio of 1.002. Discrimination was stable across sex and race or ethnicity subgroups, although some calibration drift occurred among Hispanic participants. Performance declined among adults aged ≥ 65 years (XGBoost AUC, 0.67) compared with those aged < 65 years (AUC, 0.812). Key predictors included age, sex, exercise, social isolation, healthcare access, food insecurity, financial strain, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), smoking, and transportation barriers. Conclusions: Models using upstream social determinants of health, age, and sex demonstrated good discrimination when classifying prevalent CVD. External and prospective validation is needed before these models can be considered for clinical or population-level screening.
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.