Updated Risk Factor Values and the Ability of the Multivariable Risk Score to Predict Coronary Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most existing coronary risk assessment methods are based on baseline data only. The authors compared the predictive ability of coronary multivariable risk scores based on updated versus baseline risk factors and investigated the optimal frequency of updating. Data from 16 biennial examinations of 4,962 subjects from the original Framingham Heart Study (1948-1978) were used. The predictive ability of three multivariable risk scores was evaluated through 10-fold cross-validation. The baseline-only multivariable risk score was computed using baseline values of coronary risk factors applied to a Cox model estimated from baseline data. The two other approaches relied on updated risk factors and included them in the models estimated from, respectively, baseline and updated data. All analyses were stratified by sex and age. For 30, 14, and 10 years of follow-up, the predictive ability of the baseline-only multivariable risk score was substantially poorer than that of the models using updated risk factors. Between the two latter models, the one estimated from updated data ensured better prediction than the one estimated from baseline data for 30 years of follow-up among younger subjects only. The results suggest that coronary risk assessment can be improved by utilizing updated risk factors and that the optimal frequency of updating may vary across subpopulations.
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 | 0.015 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".