Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 697

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predictive Value for the Chinese Population of the Framingham CHD Risk Assessment Tool Compared With the Chinese Multi-provincial Cohort Study

Liu, Jing·2004·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: The Framingham Heart Study helped to establish tools to assess coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, but the homogeneous nature of the Framingham population prevents simple extrapolation to other populations. Recalibration of Framingham functions could permit various regions of the world to adapt Framingham tools to local populations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the Framingham CHD risk functions, directly and after recalibration, in a large Chinese population, compared with the performance of the functions derived from the Chinese Multi-provincial Cohort Study (CMCS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The CMCS cohort included 30 121 Chinese adults aged 35 to 64 years at baseline. Participants were recruited from 11 provinces and were followed up for new CHD events from 1992 to 2002. Participants in the Framingham Heart Study were 5251 white US residents of Framingham, Mass, who were 30 to 74 years old at baseline in 1971 to 1974 and followed up for 12 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: "Hard" CHD (coronary death and myocardial infarction) was used as the end point in comparisons of risk factors (age, blood pressure, smoking, diabetes, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C]) as evaluated by the CMCS functions, original Framingham functions, and recalibrated Framingham functions. RESULTS: The CMCS cohort had 191 hard CHD events and 625 total deaths vs 273 CHD events and 293 deaths, respectively, for Framingham. For most risk factor categories, the relative risks for CHD were similar for Chinese and Framingham participants, with a few exceptions (ie, age, total cholesterol of 200-239 mg/dL [5.18-6.19 mmol/L], and HDL-C less than 35 mg/dL [0.91 mmol/L] in men; smoking in women). The discrimination using the Framingham functions in the CMCS cohort was similar to the CMCS functions: the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.705 for men and 0.742 for women using the Framingham functions vs 0.736 for men and 0.759 for women using the CMCS functions. However, the original Framingham functions systematically overestimated the absolute CHD risk in the CMCS cohort. For example, in the 10th risk decile in men, the predicted rate of CHD death was 20% vs an actual rate of 3%. Recalibration of the Framingham functions using the mean values of risk factors and mean CHD incidence rates of the CMCS cohort substantially improved the performance of the Framingham functions in the CMCS cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The original Framingham functions overestimated the risk of CHD for CMCS participants. Recalibration of the Framingham functions improved the estimates and demonstrated that the Framingham model is useful in the Chinese population. For regions that have no established cohort, recalibration using CHD rates and risk factors may be an effective method to develop CHD risk prediction algorithms suited for local practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.291.21.2591

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Cited by

See all 697

Metadata

Authors
Liu, J.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2004-06-02
Volume
291
Issue
21
Pages
2591
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2080906527
Cited by
697
References
27
FWCI
16.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predictive Value for the Chinese Population of the Framingham CHD Risk Assessment Tool Compared With the Chinese Multi-provincial Cohort Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.291.21.2591
The paper
Liu, J. (2004). Predictive Value for the Chinese Population of the Framingham CHD Risk Assessment Tool Compared With the Chinese Multi-provincial Cohort Study. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.21.2591

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.