Development and validation of a cardiovascular disease risk-prediction model using population health surveys: the Cardiovascular Disease Population Risk Tool (CVDPoRT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Routinely collected data from large population health surveys linked to chronic disease outcomes create an opportunity to develop more complex risk-prediction algorithms. We developed a predictive algorithm to estimate 5-year risk of incident cardiovascular disease in the community setting. METHODS: We derived the Cardiovascular Disease Population Risk Tool (CVDPoRT) using prospectively collected data from Ontario respondents of the Canadian Community Health Surveys, representing 98% of the Ontario population (survey years 2001 to 2007; follow-up from 2001 to 2012) linked to hospital admission and vital statistics databases. Predictors included body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and multiple behavioural, demographic and general health risk factors. The primary outcome was the first major cardiovascular event resulting in hospital admission or death. Death from a noncardiovascular cause was considered a competing risk. RESULTS: We included 104 219 respondents aged 20 to 105 years. There were 3709 cardiovascular events and 818 478 person-years follow-up in the combined derivation and validation cohorts (5-year cumulative incidence function, men: 0.026, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.025-0.028; women: 0.018, 95% 0.017-0.019). The final CVDPoRT algorithm contained 12 variables, was discriminating (men: C statistic 0.82, 95% CI 0.81-0.83; women: 0.86, 95% CI 0.85-0.87) and was well-calibrated in the overall population (5-year observed cumulative incidence function v. predicted risk, men: 0.28%; women: 0.38%) and in nearly all predefined policy-relevant subgroups (206 of 208 groups). INTERPRETATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT02267447.
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 | 0.028 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".