Investigating modifiable risk factors associated with ideal cardiovascular health among cancer survivors: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors are at higher risk of developing cardiovascular diseases and face worse morbidity and mortality outcomes than the general population. The American Heart Association (AHA) introduced the Life's Essential 8 framework, encompassing eight modifiable risk factors and lifestyle behaviors for maintaining ideal cardiovascular health (CVH). Although this framework is well-established for predicting CVH in the general population, studies on its association with cardiovascular outcomes among cancer survivors remain scattered across the literature. OBJECTIVE: This review maps existing literature surrounding modifiable risk factors, lifestyle behaviors, CVH, and cardiovascular outcomes among cancer survivors to take stock of what is known, identify methodological strengths and weaknesses, and propose promising research directions. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify studies examining different dimensions of ideal CVH in adult cancer survivors. Measurement methods of ideal CVH metrics, and determinants associated with CVH were examined. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles met eligibility criteria. Of which, 82% (n = 18) were published in or after 2020. Fourteen studies (about 64%) followed the AHA's framework to conceptualize ideal CVH. Higher scores on ideal CVH are linked to better cardiovascular outcomes among cancer survivors with associations noted for social inequalities and neighborhood environmental factors, underscoring the complexity of CVH determinants in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Research on ideal CVH among cancer survivors appears to have accelerated in recent years, yet many gaps remain to orient clinical and public health practice. Promising research directions include expanding investigations into pre-diagnosis CVH, addressing disparities in CVH across diverse populations, and conducting longitudinal studies to clarify causal pathways between lifestyle behaviors, cancer treatments, and cardiovascular outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".