Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 22, 2026
Hydra, a Computer-Based Platform for Aiding Clinicians in Cardiovascular Analysis and Diagnosis
Published on: September 26, 2018
Evaluating risk for cardiovascular diseases--vain or value? How do different cardiovascular risk scores act in real
Eeva Ketola1, Tiina Laatikainen, Erkki Vartiainen
1Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Helsinki, Finland. eeva.ketola@duodecim.fi
Insights
Cardiovascular disease risk scores vary in accuracy for different groups. Healthcare providers should consider the limitations of tools like Framingham, SCORE, and CVD Risk Score, especially for women and younger individuals.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Public Health
- Epidemiology
Background:
- Existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk screening tools have varying validity across different populations.
- Understanding the performance of these tools in real-world practice is crucial for accurate risk assessment.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the sensitivity and specificity of three CVD risk scores: Framingham Risk Function, SCORE, and CVD Risk Score.
- To evaluate their effectiveness in identifying high-risk individuals in a general population.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of a large Finnish population risk factor survey database (FINRISK Study, n = 25,059).
- Evaluation of true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative cases for different CVD endpoints over a 10-year follow-up.
- Comparison of risk charts based on Framingham Risk Function, SCORE, and CVD Risk Score.
Main Results:
- Risk score performance varied significantly by gender, age, and specific cardiovascular outcome.
- Among men, CVD Risk Score and Framingham Risk Function (>or=10% risk) showed higher sensitivity than SCORE or Framingham Risk Function (20% risk).
- Among women, CVD Risk Score demonstrated the highest sensitivity, while Framingham Risk Function (20% risk) had the lowest. Specificity was highest for SCORE and Framingham Risk Function (20% risk) across endpoints.
Conclusions:
- Significant variations in sensitivity and specificity exist among the evaluated cardiovascular risk tools.
- Clinicians must recognize the limitations of these tools, particularly when assessing risk in women and younger patients.
Background:
Screening tools to identify persons with high cardiovascular risk exist, but less is known about their validity in different population groups. The aim of this article is to compare the sensitivity and specificity of three different cardiovascular disease risk scores and their ability to detect high-risk individuals in daily practice.
Methods:
The sensitivity and specificity of risk charts based on Framingham Risk Function, SCORE and cardiovascular disease (CVD) Risk Score were analysed using a large population risk factor survey database in Finland. For different cardiovascular disease end-points in 10-year follow-up true positive, false positive, true negative and false negative cases were identified using different risk charts. Subjects over 40 years (n = 25 059) of the FINRISK Study were used in analyses.
Results:
Risk scores differed depending on gender, age and cardiovascular outcome. Among men the sensitivity of CVD Risk Score and Framingham Risk Function at risk of >or=10% for each end point was higher than of SCORE or Framingham Risk Function at risk of 20%. The specificity of Framingham Risk Function at risk of 20% was higher than the specificity of other risk charts. Among women in all endpoints the sensitivity was highest in CVD Risk Score and lowest in Framingham Risk Function at risk of >or=20%. Specificity for all different endpoints was highest in SCORE and Framingham Risk Function at risk of 20%.
Conclusions:
Sensitivity and specificity varied markedly in between three cardiovascular risk evaluation tools. Practitioners should be aware of their limitations especially when estimating risk among women and younger patients.
Related Concept Videos
01:25Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT
01:23Assessment of the Cardiovascular System I: Subjective Data
Initial Enquiry
Ask the patient about their primary concern and thoroughly explore all reported symptoms.
Medical History
Investigate past illnesses affecting the cardiovascular system, such as angina, anemia, rheumatic fever, congenital heart disease, stroke, thrombophlebitis, dysrhythmias, varicosities
Inquire about symptoms...
01:12Relative Risk
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
01:20Blood Studies for Cardiovascular System I: Cardiac Biomarkers
The essential diagnostic tools for detecting myocardial necrosis and monitoring individuals suspected of having acute coronary syndrome (ACS) include:
Troponins
Troponins, particularly cardiac troponins I and T, are the most precise and sensitive markers of myocardial injury. They are detectable within 4-6 hours of myocardial injury and remain...
01:18Cardiovascular Drugs: Classification based on Therapeutic Indications