Key result
Recalibrating PCE, China-PAR, and PREVENT improves 10-year ASCVD risk estimation accuracy in a Chinese cohort.
Why the study?
Do recalibrated PCE, China-PAR, and PREVENT models improve 10-year ASCVD risk estimation compared to original models in a Chinese cohort?
Cohort (n=79,497)
Do recalibrated PCE, China-PAR, and PREVENT models improve 10-year ASCVD risk estimation compared to original models in a Chinese cohort?
Recalibration of PCE, China-PAR, and PREVENT models to local population data mitigates misestimation of 10-year ASCVD risk in China, improving risk stratification for primary prevention.
Recalibration may improve ASCVD risk estimation in Chinese adults; leaves open impact on outcomes or practice change.
BACKGROUND: The Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) and Prediction for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) Risk in China (China-PAR) models tend to overestimate risk, whereas the Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) equations may underestimate risk in many contemporary cohorts. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate and determine if recalibration of these risk scores using contemporary population-level data improves risk stratification for primary prevention in China. METHODS: These risk scores were first validated and then recalibrated in the Kailuan study. Participants aged 40 to 79 years without ASCVD at baseline were included. Original and recalibrated models were assessed for discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: Of 79,497 participants, 4,425 ASCVD events occurred over a median follow-up of 10 years (Q1-Q3: 10-10 years). All 3 original models showed good discrimination in women (Harrell's C-index: PCE 0.735 [95% CI: 0.712-0.757], China-PAR 0.738 [95% CI: 0.715-0.760], PREVENT 0.737 [95% CI: 0.713-0.759]) and moderate discrimination in men (PCE 0.675 [95% CI: 0.667-0.683], China-PAR 0.685 [95% CI: 0.677-0.693], and PREVENT 0.685 [95% CI: 0.677-0.693]). Original models showed differential mean calibration in 10-year ASCVD risk estimation: PCE overestimated by 34.9% (men [95% CI: 32.8%-36.9%]) and 15.1% (women [95% CI: 6.8%-22.7%]); China-PAR by 17.7% (men [95% CI: 15.1%-20.2%]) and 48.2% (women [95% CI: 43.1%-52.8%]); PREVENT underestimated by 29.4% (men [95% CI: 25.4%-33.5%]) and 2.7% (women [95% CI: -6.5% to 12.8%]). After recalibrating to the local population, observed vs predicted risks exhibited improved alignment for the recalibrated models. CONCLUSIONS: In this Chinese cohort, the original PCE and China-PAR overestimated 10-year ASCVD risk, whereas PREVENT underestimated it. Recalibration mitigated such misestimation in the local population, potentially enhancing risk stratification in primary cardiovascular prevention in China.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) (n=79,497). PCE, China-PAR, and PREVENT risk models vs. Observed risk in the local population was evaluated on 10-year ASCVD events (model discrimination and calibration). The original PCE and China-PAR models overestimated 10-year ASCVD risk (by up to 34.9% and 48.2%), whereas PREVENT underestimated it (by up to 29.4%), with local recalibration improving alignment.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: