Key result
Adding reproductive risk factors to established risk models modestly improved CHD discrimination (C statistic increased from 0.726 to 0.730; P<0.0001) but did not materially improve reclassification.
Why the study?
Does the addition of reproductive risk factors improve risk stratification for coronary heart disease in women?
Observational (n=72,982)
Does the addition of reproductive risk factors improve risk stratification for coronary heart disease in women?
Effect estimate: IDI 0.0013
Absolute Event Rate: 0.73% vs 0.726%
p-value: p=<0.0001
While key reproductive factors are independently associated with coronary heart disease in women, they do not meaningfully improve clinical risk prediction beyond established risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Does not support adding reproductive factors to CHD risk models now; leaves open their incremental value in refined or subgroup-specific prediction.
Parikh et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Coronary heart disease (n=72,982). Reproductive risk factors vs. Established CHD risk factors alone was evaluated on Improvement in C statistic, net reclassification index, and integrated discriminatory index for CHD (IDI 0.0013, p=<0.0001). Adding reproductive risk factors to established risk models modestly improved CHD discrimination (C statistic increased from 0.726 to 0.730; P<0.0001) but did not materially improve reclassification.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: