Key result
Upstream social determinants with age and sex classify prevalent CVD with ~0.82 AUC.
Why the study?
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the US, and the study examined whether models using social, environmental, and behavioral factors can accurately classify prevalent CVD.
Can models using upstream social, environmental, and behavioral factors accurately classify prevalent cardiovascular disease?
Cross-Sectional (n=18,435)
Can models using upstream social, environmental, and behavioral factors accurately classify prevalent cardiovascular disease?
Upstream social, environmental, and behavioral determinants of health combined with age and sex can accurately classify prevalent cardiovascular disease, highlighting the importance of non-clinical factors in cardiovascular risk assessment.
Social determinant models may aid community CVD classification without clinical data; leaves open prospective validation before practice adoption.
Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. We examined whether a model that classifies prevalent CVD using clinical risk factor precursors (social, environmental, and behavioral factors), age, and sex, organized according to the Vital Conditions for Health framework, demonstrates good discrimination and calibration. Methods In this cross‐sectional study, we analyzed the 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) dataset ( N = 18,435 adults). Cardiovascular disease prevalence was defined using self‐reported diagnoses and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD‐10), codes. Candidate predictors included variables from the seven Vital Conditions domains, age, and sex. Models included least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). Internal validation used stratified k‐fold cross‐validation and 2022 MEPS data. Discrimination and calibration were assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), Brier score, calibration slope, calibration‐in‐the‐large (CITL), and observed‐to‐expected (O:E) ratio. Subgroup performance was evaluated by age, sex, and race or ethnicity. Results Both LASSO and XGBoost performed well. LASSO achieved an AUC of 0.822 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.815–0.831), with a calibration slope of 1.022 and an O:E ratio of 1.001. XGBoost achieved an AUC of 0.822 (95% CI, 0.814–0.831), with a calibration slope of 1.026 and an O:E ratio of 1.002. Discrimination was stable across sex and race or ethnicity subgroups, although some calibration drift occurred among Hispanic participants. Performance declined among adults aged ≥ 65 years (XGBoost AUC, 0.67) compared with those aged < 65 years (AUC, 0.812). Key predictors included age, sex, exercise, social isolation, healthcare access, food insecurity, financial strain, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), smoking, and transportation barriers. Conclusions Models using upstream social determinants of health, age, and sex demonstrated good discrimination when classifying prevalent CVD. External and prospective validation is needed before these models can be considered for clinical or population‐level screening.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kjelstrom et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Prevalent cardiovascular disease (n=18,435). Social, environmental, and behavioral factors (Vital Conditions framework) was evaluated on Discrimination of prevalent CVD classification models (AUC) (AUC 0.822, 95% CI 0.815-0.831). Models using upstream social determinants of health, age, and sex achieved an AUC of 0.822 for classifying prevalent cardiovascular disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: