Estimating Trends in Cardiovascular Disease Risk for the EXPOSE (Explaining Population Trends in Cardiovascular Risk: A Comparative Analysis of Health Transitions in South Africa and England) Study: Repeated Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the leading cause of death globally. Demographic, behavioral, socioeconomic, health care, and psychosocial variables considered risk factors for CVD are routinely measured in population health surveys, providing opportunities to examine health transitions. Studying the drivers of health transitions in countries where multiple burdens of disease persist (eg, South Africa), compared with countries regarded as models of "epidemiologic transition" (eg, England), can provide knowledge on where best to intervene and direct resources to reduce the disease burden. OBJECTIVE: The EXPOSE (Explaining Population Trends in Cardiovascular Risk: A Comparative Analysis of Health Transitions in South Africa and England) study analyzes microlevel data collected from multiple nationally representative population health surveys conducted in these 2 countries between 1998 and 2017. Creating a harmonized dataset by pooling repeated cross-sectional surveys to model trends in CVD risk is challenging due to changes in aspects such as survey content, question wording, inclusion of boost samples, weighting, measuring equipment, and guidelines for data protection. This study aimed to create a harmonized dataset based on the annual Health Surveys for England to estimate trends in mean predicted 10-year CVD risk (primary outcome) and its individual risk components (secondary outcome). METHODS: We compiled a harmonized dataset to estimate trends between 1998 and 2017 in the English adult population, including the primary and secondary outcomes, and potential drivers of those trends. Laboratory- and non-laboratory-based World Health Organization (WHO) and Globorisk algorithms were used to calculate the predicted 10-year total (fatal and nonfatal) CVD risk. Sex-specific estimates of the mean 10-year CVD risk and its components by survey year were calculated, accounting for the complex survey design. RESULTS: Laboratory- and non-laboratory-based 10-year CVD risk scores were calculated for 33,628 and 61,629 participants aged 40 to 74 years, respectively. The absolute predicted 10-year risk of CVD declined significantly on average over the last 2 decades in both sexes (for linear trend; all P<.001). In men, the mean of the laboratory-based WHO risk score was 10.1% (SE 0.2%) and 8.4% (SE 0.2%) in 1998 and 2017, respectively; corresponding figures in women were 5.6% (SE 0.1%) and 4.5% (SE 0.1%). In men, the mean of the non-laboratory-based WHO risk score was 9.6% (SE 0.1%) and 8.9% (SE 0.2%) in 1998 and 2017, respectively; corresponding figures in women were 5.8% (SE 0.1%) and 4.8% (SE 0.1%). Predicted CVD risk using the Globorisk algorithms was lower on average in absolute terms, but the pattern of change was very similar. Trends in the individual risk components showed a complex pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonized data from repeated cross-sectional health surveys can be used to quantify the drivers of recent changes in CVD risk at the population level.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".