Age dependent associations of risk factors with heart failure: pooled population based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To assess age differences in risk factors for incident heart failure in the general population. Design Pooled population based cohort study. Setting Framingham Heart Study, Prevention of Renal and Vascular End-stage Disease Study, and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Participants 24 675 participants without a history of heart failure stratified by age into young (<55 years; n=11 599), middle aged (55-64 years; n=5587), old (65-74 years; n=5190), and elderly (≥75 years; n=2299) individuals. Main outcome measure Incident heart failure. Results Over a median follow-up of 12.7 years, 138/11 599 (1%), 293/5587 (5%), 538/5190 (10%), and 412/2299 (18%) of young, middle aged, old, and elderly participants, respectively, developed heart failure. In young participants, 32% (n=44) of heart failure cases were classified as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction compared with 43% (n=179) in elderly participants. Risk factors including hypertension, diabetes, current smoking history, and previous myocardial infarction conferred greater relative risk in younger compared with older participants (P for interaction <0.05 for all). For example, hypertension was associated with a threefold increase in risk of future heart failure in young participants (hazard ratio 3.02, 95% confidence interval 2.10 to 4.34; P<0.001) compared with a 1.4-fold risk in elderly participants (1.43, 1.13 to 1.81; P=0.003). The absolute risk for developing heart failure was lower in younger than in older participants with and without risk factors. Importantly, known risk factors explained a greater proportion of overall population attributable risk for heart failure in young participants (75% v 53% in elderly participants), with better model performance (C index 0.79 v 0.64). Similarly, the population attributable risks of obesity (21% v 13%), hypertension (35% v 23%), diabetes (14% v 7%), and current smoking (32% v 1%) were higher in young compared with elderly participants. Conclusions Despite a lower incidence and absolute risk of heart failure among younger compared with older people, the stronger association and greater attributable risk of modifiable risk factors among young participants highlight the importance of preventive efforts across the adult life course.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".