Cited by 841Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors

C-Reactive Protein and Parental History Improve Global Cardiovascular Risk Prediction: The Reynolds Risk Score for Men

Open access
Ridker, Paul M, Paynter, Nina P., Rifai, Nader, Gaziano, J. Michael, Cook, Nancy R.·2008·Circulation

Abstract

Background— High-sensitivity C-reactive protein and family history are independently associated with future cardiovascular events and have been incorporated into risk prediction models for women (the Reynolds Risk Score for women); however, no cardiovascular risk prediction algorithm incorporating these variables currently exists for men. Methods and Results— Among 10 724 initially healthy American nondiabetic men who were followed up prospectively over a median period of 10.8 years, we compared the test characteristics of global model fit, discrimination, calibration, and reclassification in 2 prediction models for incident cardiovascular events, one based on age, blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (traditional model) and the other based on these risk factors plus high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and parental history of myocardial infarction before age 60 years (Reynolds Risk Score for men). A total of 1294 cardiovascular events accrued during study follow-up. Compared with the traditional model, the Reynolds Risk Score had better global fit (likelihood ratio test P <0.001), a superior (lower) Bayes information criterion, and a larger C-index ( P <0.001). For the end point of all cardiovascular events, the Reynolds Risk Score for men reclassified 17.8% (1904/10 724) of the study population (and 20.2% [1392/6884] of those at 5% to 20% 10-year risk) into higher- or lower-risk categories, with markedly improved accuracy among those reclassified. For this model comparison, the net reclassification index was 5.3%, and the clinical net reclassification index was 14.2% (both P <0.001). In models based on the Adult Treatment Panel III preferred end point of coronary heart disease and limited to men not taking lipid-lowering therapy, 16.7% of the study population (and 20.1% of those at 5% to 20% 10-year risk) were reclassified to higher- or lower-risk groups, again with significantly improved global fit, larger C-index ( P <0.001), and markedly improved accuracy among those reclassified. For this model, the net reclassification index was 8.4% and the clinical net reclassification index was 15.8% (both P <0.001). Conclusions— As previously shown in women, a prediction model in men that incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and parental history significantly improves global cardiovascular risk prediction.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.108.814251

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many cardiovascular risk assessment systems are available and have been comprehensively reviewed, including Framingham models, SCORE, ASSIGN, Q-Risk, PROCAM, Reynolds, CUORE, the Pooled Cohort equations, and Globorisk.

    “Many risk assessment systems are available and have been comprehensively reviewed, including different Framingham models, 41 Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation (SCORE), 42 ASSIGN (CV risk estimation model from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network), 43 Q-Risk, 44 Prospective Cardiovascular Munster Study (PROCAM), 45 Reynolds, 46,47 CUORE, 48 the Pooled Cohort equations 49 and Globorisk. 5”

    From 2016 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias (2016) · cites this paper as [46]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 10.1161/circ.86.5.1330360 · DOI
  2. 10.1161/hyp.39.1.105 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ridker, P. M., Paynter, N. P., Rifai, N., Gaziano, J. M., & Cook, N. R.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
Circulation
Published
2008-11-25
Volume
118
Issue
22
Pages
2243-2251
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2096807144
Cited by
841
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 68 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 92
FWCI
80.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA097193)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Keywords
Reynolds Risk Score, cardiovascular risk prediction, men, family history of myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, risk reclassification, net reclassification improvement, coronary risk factors, hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, smoking, non-diabetic men
MeSH terms
C-Reactive Protein, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Inflammation, Life Style, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Sex Characteristics, Biomarkers, Likelihood Functions, Risk Assessment

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