Predicting Cardiovascular Disease Using the Framingham Heart Study: A Logistic Regression and Risk Stratification Approach
Mensah, R.; Kwarteng, A. K.
Show abstract
BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The Framingham Heart Study has provided seminal insights into the development of CVD risk prediction models. ObjectiveTo develop and evaluate a logistic regression model for predicting incident CVD using traditional risk factors in a subset of the Framingham Heart Study dataset. MethodsData from 95 participants were analyzed. Predictors included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, glucose, and diabetes status. Logistic regression was used to estimate univariate and multivariable associations with incident CVD. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. ResultsIn univariate analysis, higher BMI (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.05-1.40, p = 0.010), systolic BP (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, p = 0.042), diastolic BP (OR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10, p = 0.006), and categorical BMI (OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.35-5.96, p = 0.006) were associated with increased odds of CVD. Male sex was associated with lower odds (OR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.16- 0.94, p = 0.037). In multivariable analysis adjusting for BMI, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and sex, higher BMI (AOR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.03-1.45, p = 0.023) and diastolic BP (AOR = 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1.17, p = 0.026) remained independently associated with higher odds of CVD, whereas male sex was associated with lower odds (AOR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.65, p = 0.006). Systolic BP was not statistically significant (AOR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.03, p = 0.439). The multivariable model demonstrated good discrimination (AUC = 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.88) and adequate calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.723). ConclusionTraditional risk factors, particularly BMI and diastolic blood pressure, were robustly associated with incident CVD even in this small subsample. These results support the reproducibility of classical CVD predictors and the utility of logistic regression modeling in epidemiological research.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Carotid Intima-media thickness, carotid distensibility and incident heart failure in older men: The British Regional Heart Study 96%
- Social Networks and Cardiovascular Disease Events in the Jackson Heart Study 95%
- Walking pace optimizes conventional cardiovascular disease risk prediction models among vulnerable subpopulations: a prospective cohort study 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Hemodynamic Differences Between Women and Men with Elevated Blood Pressure in China 94%
- The association of cardiovascular disease and other pre-existing comorbidities with COVID-19 mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
- Circulating adiponectin mediates the association between omentin gene polymorphism and cardiometabolic health in Asian Indians 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Obesity, hypertension and tobacco use associated with left ventricular remodelling and hypertrophy in South African Women: Birth to Twenty Plus Cohort 96%
- Dynamic Predictive Accuracy of Electrocardiographic Biomarkers of Sudden Cardiac Death within a Survival Framework: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study 93%
- Pre-existing cardiovascular disease rather than cardiovascular risk factors drives mortality in COVID-19 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and validation of a risk prediction algorithm for high-risk populations combining genetic and conventional risk factors of cardiovascular disease 95%
- Association between adiposity and cardiovascular outcomes: an umbrella review and meta-analysis 95%
- Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease: prediction, attributable risk fraction and estimating benefits from novel interventions 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.