Abstract 18914: Comparison of Statin Eligibility Using the Pooled Cohort Equations, ATP-III Framingham and Reynolds Risk Scores Among Adults Who Experienced ASCVD Events: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol recommended initiating statin therapy when an individual’s 10-year estimated ASCVD risk ≥7.5% We sought to determine whether adults who eventually experienced ASCVD events were more likely to be identified as having ≥7.5% risk using the ACC/AHA’s Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) compared to the ATP III-Framingham (FRS) and Reynolds risk scores (RRS). Methods: We used data from the biracial Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) visit 4 (1996-1998) because hsCRP was measured at this exam. We excluded participants with an ASCVD event prior to visit 4, diabetes, statin use at visit 4, age>74, LDL-C >190 mg/dl, or missing data. Published models for the PCE, ATP III-FRS, and RRS estimated risk. We defined statin eligibility as an estimated 10-year risk ≥7.5% for the PCE and RRS, and ≥10% for the ATP III-FRS. The primary outcome for each score was based on the outcomes originally used to derive the scores: ATP III-FRS (MI or CHD death), PCE (MI, CHD death, stroke) and RRS (MI, CHD death, stroke and revascularization). Results: Using the PCE, 2592 participants had an estimated risk ≥7.5% and 2760 <7.5%. The median age among those with estimated risk ≥7.5% was 66; 19% were black and 35% were women. Over a median of 11 years 304 CHD events, 201 strokes and 432 revascularizations occurred. With all 3 risk scores >80% of men who experienced events had an estimated risk ≥7.5% (see Table). In contrast, a much smaller proportion of women who experienced events had an estimated risk ≥7.5%, although the PCE yielded the highest proportion (52%). Conclusions: A cutoff of ≥7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk identified the majority of male participants in ARIC who experienced subsequent ASCVD events regardless of the risk score used. Substantially fewer women who experienced events were identified. Lower risk cutoffs or additional markers of ASCVD risk may be required when making decisions about statin therapy for women.
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 | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".