Literature DB >> 23053326

Prediction models for risk classification in cardiovascular disease.

Mario Petretta1, Alberto Cuocolo.   

Abstract

Risk stratification is an increasingly important tool for the management of patients with different diseases and also for decision making in subjects not yet with overt disease but who are at risk of disease in the short or long term or during their lifetime. Careful risk assessment in the individual patient, based on clinical, laboratory and imaging data, can be helpful for making decisions about treatment or other prevention strategies. As regards cardiovascular disease, many models have been suggested and are available for the prediction of diagnosis and prognosis and there are several algorithms for risk prediction. However, current risk screening methods are not perfect. This review evaluates relative strengths and limitations of traditional and more recent methods for assessing the performance of prediction models.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23053326     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-012-2254-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  66 in total

1.  Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino; S Grundy; L M Sullivan; P Wilson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-07-11       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Age as a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Allan D Sniderman; Curt D Furberg
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2008-03-05       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  A guide to interpreting and assessing the performance of prediction models.

Authors:  Vasim Farooq; Salvatore Brugaletta; Pascal Vranckx; Patrick W Serruys
Journal:  EuroIntervention       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 6.534

4.  Assessing the incremental value of diagnostic and prognostic markers: a review and illustration.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Michael J Pencina; Hester F Lingsma; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Ben Van Calster
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 4.686

5.  Potential use of 10-year and lifetime coronary risk information for preventive cardiology prescribing decisions: a primary care physician survey.

Authors:  Stephen D Persell; Charles Zei; Kenzie A Cameron; Michael Zielinski; Donald M Lloyd-Jones
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-03-08

6.  Predicting CHD risk in France: a pooled analysis of the D.E.S.I.R., Three City, PRIME, and SU.VI.MAX studies.

Authors:  J P Empana; M Tafflet; S Escolano; A C Vergnaux; S Bineau; J B Ruidavets; M Montaye; B Haas; S Czernichow; B Balkau; P Ducimetiere
Journal:  Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil       Date:  2011-02-08

7.  Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Estimating the likelihood of significant coronary artery disease.

Authors:  D B Pryor; F E Harrell; K L Lee; R M Califf; R A Rosati
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 4.965

9.  Advances in measuring the effect of individual predictors of cardiovascular risk: the role of reclassification measures.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook; Paul M Ridker
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  One statistical test is sufficient for assessing new predictive markers.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Colin B Begg
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  8 in total

1.  Stress protocol and accuracy of myocardial perfusion imaging: Is it better to start from the end?

Authors:  Marco Spadafora; Marco Salvatore; Alberto Cuocolo
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  Complement C3a levels and misinterpretation of classifier technology.

Authors:  Mario Petretta
Journal:  Inflamm Res       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 4.575

3.  Reply: Logistic regression, odds ratio, and factor variables.

Authors:  Mario Petretta; Alberto Cuocolo
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Cardiovascular risk stratification in diabetic patients: is all in METS?

Authors:  Mario Petretta; Wanda Acampa; Alberto Cuocolo
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Quantification of myocardial perfusion in clinical trials.

Authors:  Mario Petretta; Carmela Nappi; Alberto Cuocolo
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  Cardiac neuronal imaging with ¹²³I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine in heart failure: implications of endpoint selection and quantitative analysis on clinical decisions.

Authors:  Mario Petretta; Teresa Pellegrino; Alberto Cuocolo
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 7.  Methodological issues in current practice may lead to bias in the development of biomarker combinations for predicting acute kidney injury.

Authors:  Allison Meisner; Kathleen F Kerr; Heather Thiessen-Philbrook; Steven G Coca; Chirag R Parikh
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 10.612

8.  Cardiovascular health and cognitive function: the Maine-Syracuse Longitudinal Study.

Authors:  Georgina E Crichton; Merrill F Elias; Adam Davey; Ala'a Alkerwi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.