Cited by 705Health Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

Cardiovascular Risk Prediction: Basic Concepts, Current Status, and Future Directions

Lloyd-Jones, Donald M.·2010·Circulation

Abstract

Few topics have received as much attention in the cardio-vascular literature over the last 5 years as risk prediction. The assessment of risk has been a key element in efforts to define risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD), to identify novel markers of risk for CVD, to identify and assess potential targets of therapy, and to enhance the cost-effective implementation of therapies for both primary and secondary prevention of CVD. With the publication of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treat-ment Panel (ATP-III)1 in 2001 and similar guidelines from other national and international bodies,2–5 risk prediction assumed a central role in the field of CVD prevention. Since then, numerous attempts have been made to refine and improve risk assessment methods. A basic review of the history and principles of risk prediction, their statistical underpinnings, and their clinical implications is thus required to help clinicians and researchers understand the increasingly complex approaches being undertaken to refine CVD risk prediction. Other articles in this series address the current adoption, utility, and effect of risk estimation algorithms in clinical prevention practice. Rationale for CVD Risk Prediction Risk estimates can theoretically be used to raise population awareness of diseases (such as CVD) that cause a significant burden of morbidity and mortality, to communicate knowledge about that risk to individuals and subgroups, and to motivate adherence to recommended lifestyle changes or therapies. In clinical practice, risk prediction algorithms have been used most directly to identify individuals at high risk for developing CVD in the short term to select those individuals for more intensive preventive interventions. The prime example of this latter “high-risk ” prevention strategy, which relies heavily on the quantitative prediction of CVD risk, is the approach promul-gated by the ATP-III panel.1 In this algorithm, the stated underlying assumption is that the intensity of treatment and risk factor reduction should match the level of absolute predicted risk.1,6 Therefore, it is useful to understand the current and potential future roles of quantitative risk prediction in guidelines.

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.109.849166

Cites

77 of 77 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?

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: 8

  1. Wood D, De Backer G, Faergeman O, Graham I, Mancia G, Pyorala K. Prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice: recommen- dations of the Second Joint Task Force of European and Other Societies on Coronary Prevention. Atherosclerosis. 1998;140:199 -270.
  2. Matching the intensity of risk factor management with the hazard for coronary disease events: Bethesda Conference 27. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27:957-1047.
  3. Vine DL, Hastings GE. Ischaemic heart disease and cholesterol: absolute risk more informative than relative risk. BMJ. 1994;308:1040 -1041.
  4. De Backer G, Ambrosioni E, Borch-Johnsen K, Brotons C, Cifkova R, Dallongeville J, Ebrahim S, Faergeman O, Graham I, Mancia G, Cats VM, Orth-Gomer K, Perk J, Pyorala K, Rodicio JL, Sans S, Sansoy V, Sechtem U, Silber S, Thomsen T, Wood D. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: Third Joint Task Force of European and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Pre- vention in Clinical Practice. Atherosclerosis. 2004;173:381-391.
  5. Pepe MS, Feng Z, Gu JW. Comments on "Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassifi- cation and beyond" by M.J. Pencina et al. Stat Med. 2008;27:207-212.
  6. Beiser A, D'Agostino RB, Seshadri S, Sullivan LM, Wolf PA. Computing estimates of incidence, including lifetime risk. Stat Med. 2002;19: 1495-1522.
  7. Gaynor JJ, Feuer EJ, Tan CC, Wu DH, Little CR, Straus DJ, Clarkson BD, Brennan MF. On the use of cause-specific failure and conditional failure probabilities. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88:402-409.
  8. Bleumink GS, Knetsch AM, Sturkenboom MCJM, Straus SMJM, Hofman A, Deckers JW, Witteman JCM, Stricker BHC. Quantifying the heart failure epidemic: prevalence, incidence rate, lifetime risk and prognosis of heart failure: the Rotterdam Study. Eur Heart J. 2004;25: 1614 -1619.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lloyd-Jones, D. M.
Affiliations
From the Department of Preventive Medicine and Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Ill.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2010-04-20
Volume
121
Issue
15
Pages
1768-1777
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2051512233
Cited by
705
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 70 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 51
FWCI
6.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • 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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Keywords
cardiovascular risk prediction, cardiovascular risk, risk assessment
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Cardiovascular Diseases, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Factors, Models, Statistical, Practice Guidelines as Topic, 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