Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,139

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Criteria for Evaluation of Novel Markers of Cardiovascular Risk: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Open access
Hlatky, Mark A., Greenland, Philip, Arnett, Donna K., Ballantyne, Christie M., Criqui, Michael H., Elkind, Mitchell S.V., Go, Alan S., Harrell, Frank E., Hong, Yuling, Howard, Barbara V., Howard, Virginia J., Hsue, Priscilla Y., Kramer, Christopher M., McConnell, Joseph P., Normand, Sharon-Lise T., O'Donnell, Christopher J., Smith, Sidney C., Wilson, Peter W.F.·2009·Circulation

Abstract

There is increasing interest in utilizing novel markers of cardiovascular disease risk, and consequently, there is a need to assess the value of their use. This scientific statement reviews current concepts of risk evaluation and proposes standards for the critical appraisal of risk assessment methods. An adequate evaluation of a novel risk marker requires a sound research design, a representative at-risk population, and an adequate number of outcome events. Studies of a novel marker should report the degree to which it adds to the prognostic information provided by standard risk markers. No single statistical measure provides all the information needed to assess a novel marker, so measures of both discrimination and accuracy should be reported. The clinical value of a marker should be assessed by its effect on patient management and outcomes. In general, a novel risk marker should be evaluated in several phases, including initial proof of concept, prospective validation in independent populations, documentation of incremental information when added to standard risk markers, assessment of effects on patient management and outcomes, and ultimately, cost-effectiveness.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.109.192278

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,139

Metadata

Authors
Hlatky, M. A., Greenland, P., Arnett, D. K., Ballantyne, C. M., Criqui, M. H., Elkind, M. S. V., Go, A. S., Harrell, F. E., Hong, Y., Howard, B. V., Howard, V. J., Hsue, P. Y., Kramer, C. M., McConnell, J. P., Normand, S.-L. T., O'Donnell, C. J., Smith, S. C., & Wilson, P. W. F.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2009-05-05
Volume
119
Issue
17
Pages
2408-2416
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2130383679
Cited by
1,139
References
4
FWCI
102.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Criteria for Evaluation of Novel Markers of Cardiovascular Risk: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.109.192278
The paper
Hlatky, M. A., Greenland, P., Arnett, D. K., Ballantyne, C. M., Criqui, M. H., Elkind, M. S. V., Go, A. S., Harrell, F. E., Hong, Y., Howard, B. V., Howard, V. J., Hsue, P. Y., Kramer, C. M., McConnell, J. P., Normand, S.-L. T., O'Donnell, C. J., Smith, S. C., & Wilson, P. W. F. (2009). Criteria for Evaluation of Novel Markers of Cardiovascular Risk: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.109.192278

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.