MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413853467 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf555

SCORE2 charts assign a different risk category than the underlying model in a large portion of Polish primary care patients

2025· article· en· W4413853467 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marcin Goławski, Maciej Banach, Jacek Jerzy Jozwiak, Marek Gierlotka, Kamila Osadnik, Tadeusz Osadnik

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersValeant Pharmaceuticals InternationalBio-Rad Laboratories
KeywordsMedicinePrimary careRisk modelFamily medicineRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims This study aims to compare the estimates provided by the SCORE2/SCORE2-OP charts with the estimates obtained by using SCORE2 and SCORE2-OP risk model equations. Methods and results Patients were recruited from 16 major Polish administrative regions proportionally to the number of inhabitants through primary care practices. Patients with risk parameters exceeding permitted values and with comorbidities putting them in the very high-risk category were excluded, and a total of 6621 patients were studied in this analysis. Each eligible patient was assigned SCORE2/SCORE2-OP risk estimate and category using the SCORE2 chart and the equations for high-risk countries provided in the original SCORE2/SCORE2-OP papers. Compared with the underlying model estimate, SCORE2 chart estimate was ≥20% higher for a total of 2164 (32.7%) patients and 20% lower for a total of 366 (5.5%) patients; the assigned risks differed significantly between (P < 0.0001; Wilcoxon rank test). It was also found that SCORE2 charts assigned 1278 (19.3%) patients to a higher risk category and 105 (1.6%) patients to a lower category (P < 0.001; McNemar–Bowker test). A clear saw-tooth pattern was observed in the difference between equation and chart estimate at different values of systolic blood pressure, age, and non-HDL, and a clear bias towards risk overestimation at higher HDL concentrations was also noted for the charts. Conclusion SCORE2/SCORE2-OP charts tend to overestimate cardiovascular risk relative to the core risk models. The use of calculators that directly apply the model might help to determine more accurately the indications for blood pressure- and lipid-lowering therapies. Lay summary In this paper, estimates obtained from SCORE2 and SCORE2-OP cardiovascular risk charts were compared with estimates from the underlying risk models.SCORE2 and SCORE2-OP charts have a clear tendency to overestimate cardiovascular risk relative to the model obtained in their original publications.The overestimation is more likely at higher HDL values and at the bottom of the non-HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and age intervals presented in the charts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207