The Role of Visualization in Estimating Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supporting and understanding the health of patients with chronic diseases and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is often a major challenge. Health data are often used in providing feedback to patients, and visualization plays an important role in facilitating the interpretation and understanding of data and, thus, influencing patients' behavior. Visual analytics enable efficient analysis and understanding of large datasets in real time. Digital health technologies can promote healthy lifestyle choices and assist in estimating CVD risk. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to present the most-used visualization techniques to estimate CVD risk. METHODS: In this scoping review, we followed the Joanna Briggs Institute PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The search strategy involved searching databases, including PubMed, CINAHL Ultimate, MEDLINE, and Web of Science, and gray literature from Google Scholar. This review included English-language articles on digital health, mobile health, mobile apps, images, charts, and decision support systems for estimating CVD risk, as well as empirical studies, excluding irrelevant studies and commentaries, editorials, and systematic reviews. RESULTS: We found 774 articles and screened them against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The final scoping review included 17 studies that used different methodologies, including descriptive, quantitative, and population-based studies. Some prognostic models, such as the Framingham Risk Profile, World Health Organization and International Society of Hypertension risk prediction charts, Cardiovascular Risk Score, and a simplified Persian atherosclerotic CVD risk stratification, were simpler and did not require laboratory tests, whereas others, including the Joint British Societies recommendations on the prevention of CVD, Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation, and Framingham-Registre Gironí del COR, were more complex and required laboratory testing-related results. The most frequently used prognostic risk factors were age, sex, and blood pressure (16/17, 94% of the studies); smoking status (14/17, 82%); diabetes status (11/17, 65%); family history (10/17, 59%); high-density lipoprotein and total cholesterol (9/17, 53%); and triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (6/17, 35%). The most frequently used visualization techniques in the studies were visual cues (10/17, 59%), followed by bar charts (5/17, 29%) and graphs (4/17, 24%). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the scoping review, we found that visualization is very rarely included in the prognostic models themselves even though technology-based interventions improve health care worker performance, knowledge, motivation, and compliance by integrating machine learning and visual analytics into applications to identify and respond to estimation of CVD risk. Visualization aids in understanding risk factors and disease outcomes, improving bioinformatics and biomedicine. However, evidence on mobile health's effectiveness in improving CVD outcomes is limited.
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 | 0.036 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".