Key result
A CHD risk prediction model accounting for competing mortality risks showed moderate discrimination (c-statistic 0.63-0.68) but did not substantially improve accuracy over Framingham scores.
Why the study?
Does a new CHD risk prediction model accounting for competing risks improve prediction accuracy compared to Framingham point scores in older adults?
Population
9,249 persons aged 65 years or older who were free of cardiovascular disease
Comparison
A sex-specific CHD risk prediction model… vs Framingham point scores
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
median 16.5 years (CHS) and 14.9 years (RS)
Authors
Loading...
Competing-risk models should not yet supplant Framingham scores in older adults; leaves open whether refined approaches can improve CHD prediction accuracy.
Cohort (n=9,249)
Yes
Does a new CHD risk prediction model accounting for competing risks improve prediction accuracy compared to Framingham point scores in older adults?
A new CHD risk prediction model accounting for competing risks in older adults provided well-calibrated estimates but did not substantially improve accuracy over existing Framingham scores.
Koller et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Coronary heart disease (n=9,249). Sex-specific CHD risk prediction model accounting for competing risks for death vs. Framingham point scores was evaluated on Composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction and coronary death. A CHD risk prediction model accounting for competing mortality risks showed moderate discrimination (c-statistic 0.63-0.68) but did not substantially improve accuracy over Framingham scores.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: