MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082584683 · doi:10.1161/jaha.119.016003

Predicting Risk of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Using Pooled Cohort Equations in Older Adults With Frailty, Multimorbidity, and Competing Risks

2020· article· en· W3082584683 on OpenAlexafffund
Quôc Dinh Nguyên, Michelle C. Odden, Carmen A. Peralta, Dae Hyun Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCohortCumulative incidenceAtherosclerotic cardiovascular diseaseFramingham Risk ScoreIncidence (geometry)Cohort studyAtherosclerosis Risk in CommunitiesMultimorbidityRisk assessmentDiseaseInternal medicineGerontologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is crucial for prevention and management, but the performance of the pooled cohort equations in older adults with frailty and multimorbidity is unknown. We evaluated the pooled cohort equations in these subgroups and the impact of competing risks. Methods and Results In 4249 community-dwelling adults, aged ≥65 years, from the CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study), we calculated 10-year risk of hard ASCVD. Frailty was determined using the Fried phenotype. Latent class analysis was used to identify individuals with multimorbidity patterns using chronic conditions. We assessed discrimination using the C-statistic and calibration by comparing predicted ASCVD risks with estimated risk using cause-specific and cumulative incidence models, by multimorbidity patterns and frailty status. A total of 917 (21.6%) participants had an ASCVD event, and 706 (16.6%) had a competing event of death. C-statistic was 0.68 in men and 0.69 in women; calibration was good when compared with cause-specific and cumulative incidence estimated risks (males, -0.1% and 3.3%; females, 0.6% and 1.4%). Latent class analysis identified 4 patterns: minimal disease, cardiometabolic, low cognition, musculoskeletal-lung depression. In the cardiometabolic pattern, ASCVD risk was overpredicted compared with cumulative incidence risk in men (7.4%) and women (6.8%). Risk was underpredicted in men (-10.7%) and women (-8.2%) with frailty compared with cause-specific risk. Miscalibration occurred mostly at high predicted risk ranges. Conclusions ASCVD prediction was good in this cohort of adults aged ≥65 years. Although calibration varied by multimorbidity patterns, frailty, and competing risks, miscalibration was mostly present at high predicted risk ranges and thus less likely to alter decision making for primary prevention therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207