Adoption of the PREVENT (Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease EVENTs) Risk Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The PREVENT (Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs risk algorithm was developed to better reflect the impact of metabolic factors on cardiovascular risk. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the relative performance of PREVENT with standard comparator algorithms (Framingham risk score, pooled cohort equation, SCORE2 [Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation2]) for risk stratification emphasizing the implications of weighing chronic kidney disease. Methods: ). The concordance and reclassification rates were calculated for each category of risk with emphasis on subjects characterized as moderate risk by the standard comparator algorithms. Results: PREVENT demonstrated increased risk with progressive decreases in eGFR. When the standard comparator algorithms identified moderate risk, PREVENT was concordant in 6% to 88% of simulations. In simulations with normal eGFR, PREVENT identified a lower risk in 18% to 88% and a higher risk in 0% to 12% of simulations. Conversely, with abnormal eGFR, PREVENT identified lower risk in 0% to 26% and higher risk in 4% to 94% of simulations. Conclusions: PREVENT substantially reclassifies risk and has the potential to alter prevention practice patterns. The tendency to assign a lower risk compared to standard algorithms when eGFR is normal may diminish implementation of preventive therapy. National health care systems need to monitor whether such changes improve overall public health.
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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".