Life's Essential 8 and Incident Cardiovascular Disease: Validation Using Real World Data from Consumer Devices in the All of Us Research Program
Tremblay, J. O.; Annis, J.; Master, H.; Cakar, A.; Coleman, P.; Full, K. M.; Ruderfer, D.; Elfassy, T.; Brittain, E.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe Lifes Essential 8 (LE8) metric is a well-validated tool to assess cardiovascular health. The tool relies on self-reported physical activity (PA) and sleep data which may be subject to recall bias when compared with objective device-derived data. We used objectively captured device data from Fitbit devices linked to the electronic health record (EHR) from the All of Us Research Program (AoURP) to examine the association between LE8 and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD). MethodsWe analyzed AoURP participants with [≥]6 months of Fitbit-derived PA and sleep data from 2009 to 2023. Remaining LE8 components were obtained via EHR and combined with Fitbit components to calculate LE8 scores. Cox proportional hazards models analyzed the association between LE8 scores and a composite CVD outcome (myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, and peripheral artery disease). Relative explained variation (REV) assessed the contribution of each LE8 component to model performance. We modeled the impact of plausible changes in weekly activity and sleep on the composite CVD outcome. Results11,542 participants were included (50.1 years [IQR: 35.9, 61.7], 74% female, 81% white) with a median monitoring duration of 4.48 years [2.00, 6.87]. The median LE8 score was 68.1 [60.6, 74.4]. Higher LE8 score was linearly associated with lower CVD risk (HR = 0.74; CI, 0.69-0.80) per 10-point increase. Risk of MI, CAD, HF, PAD, and stroke showed similar independent associations with LE8 scores. Among LE8 components, physical activity had the highest median REV 0.35 [0.21, 0.47], followed by blood pressure (0.23, CI = 0.11-0.36) and blood glucose (0.14, CI = 0.05-0.24). Increasing weekly moderate to vigorous physical activity by 30 minutes (120min to 150min) decreased the risk of incident CVD by 23% (HR=0.77; CI, 0.721-0.81), and increasing sleep duration from 4-5 hours to 7-9 hours decreased the risk of incident CVD by 35% (HR=0.65; CI, 0.50-0.84). ConclusionThese results underscore the potential of calculating the LE8 score using objective PA and sleep data from consumer devices and highlight the disproportionate impact of lifestyle behaviors on CVD risk among patients seeking care. Consumer wearable devices offer valuable information when included in cardiovascular risk assessment.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Accelerometer-derived sleep onset timing and cardiovascular disease incidence: a UK Biobank cohort study 95%
- Development and Multinational Validation of an Ensemble Deep Learning Algorithm for Detecting and Predicting Structural Heart Disease Using Noisy Single-lead Electrocardiograms 91%
- Using ECG Machine Learning for Detection of Cardiovascular Disease in African American Men and Women: the Jackson Heart Study 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Accelerometer-Derived and Genetically Inferred Physical Activity and Human Disease 94%
- Cohort Design and Natural Language Processing to Reduce Bias in Electronic Health Records Research: The Community Care Cohort Project 93%
- Novel clinical subphenotypes in COVID-19: derivation, validation, prediction, temporal patterns, and interaction with social determinants of health 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Sociodemographic Characteristics of Missing Data in Digital Phenotyping 92%
- Cross-classification between self-rated health and health status: longitudinal analyses of all-cause mortality and leading causes of death in the UK 92%
- Synergistic effects of cardiovascular health and social isolation on adverse pregnancy outcomes 92%
"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.