In:
Scientific Reports, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 11, No. 1 ( 2021-10-04)
Abstract:
Inclusion of clinical parameters limits the application of most cardiovascular disease (CVD) prediction models to clinical settings. We developed and externally validated a non-clinical CVD risk score with a clinical extension and compared the performance to established CVD risk scores. We derived the scores predicting CVD (non-fatal and fatal myocardial infarction and stroke) in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Potsdam cohort (n = 25,992, cases = 683) using competing risk models and externally validated in EPIC-Heidelberg (n = 23,529, cases = 692). Performance was assessed by C -indices, calibration plots, and expected-to-observed ratios and compared to a non-clinical model, the Pooled Cohort Equation, Framingham CVD Risk Scores (FRS), PROCAM scores, and the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE). Our non-clinical score included age, gender, waist circumference, smoking, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, CVD family history, and dietary parameters. C -indices consistently indicated good discrimination (EPIC-Potsdam 0.786, EPIC-Heidelberg 0.762) comparable to established clinical scores (thereof highest, FRS: EPIC-Potsdam 0.781, EPIC-Heidelberg 0.764). Additional clinical parameters slightly improved discrimination (EPIC-Potsdam 0.796, EPIC-Heidelberg 0.769). Calibration plots indicated very good calibration with minor overestimation in the highest decile of predicted risk. The developed non-clinical 10-year CVD risk score shows comparable discrimination to established clinical scores, allowing assessment of individual CVD risk in physician-independent settings.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
2045-2322
DOI:
10.1038/s41598-021-99103-4
Language:
English
Publisher:
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Publication Date:
2021
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2615211-3
Bookmarklink