Recalibration of a Framingham risk equation for a rural population in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) risk estimation tools are a simple means of identifying those at high risk in a community and hence a potentially cost-effective strategy for CHD prevention in resource-poor countries. Since India has few local data upon which to develop such a tool de novo, in this study a Framingham risk equation has been recalibrated to estimate CHD risks in a population from rural India and the sensitivity of the method to information resources examined. Recent surveys of this population have found high levels of cardiovascular risk factors, particularly metabolic risk factors and a high proportion of mortality due to cardiovascular diseases. METHODS: The proportion of a rural Indian population at high risk of CHD using three risk estimation equations was estimated. The first a published version of the Framingham risk equation, the second a recalibrated equation using local mortality surveillance data and local risk factor data, and the third a recalibrated equation using national mortality data and local risk factor data. RESULTS: The mean 10-year probability of CHD for adults >30 years was 10.4% (9.6% to 11.1%) for men and 5.3% (4.9% to 5.7%) for women using the Framingham equation; 10.7% (9.9% to 11.5%) for men and 4.2% (3.9% to 4.5%) for women using the local recalibration; and 18.9% (17.7% to 20.1%) for men and 8.2% (7.6% to 8.8%) for women using the national recalibration. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that in India, equations recalibrated to summary national data are unlikely to be relevant to all regions of India and demonstrate the importance of local data collection to enable development of relevant CHD risk tools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".