Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 2, 2026

Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
Risk and the physics of clinical prediction
John W McEvoy1, George A Diamond2, Robert C Detrano3
1Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Insights
Cardiology risk prediction models are more accurate for groups than individuals. Shifting focus from predicting events to detecting subclinical disease improves personalized cardiovascular care.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Preventive Medicine
- Medical Decision Making
Background:
- Current cardiology prevention relies on traditional risk factors and prediction models.
- These models, while useful for populations, have limitations in individual patient risk assessment.
- Guideline-based algorithms for treatments like aspirin and statins depend on these population-based risk estimates.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review the limitations of population-based cardiovascular risk prediction for individual patients.
- To highlight the advantages of direct disease detection (screening) over risk estimation for personalized treatment.
- To explore future strategies for risk estimation and treatment allocation in preventive cardiology.
Main Methods:
- Review of existing literature and principles from physics as a metaphor.
- Analysis of the accuracy of population-level versus individual-level risk predictions.
- Discussion of the role of subclinical disease detection in personalized medicine.
Main Results:
- Cardiovascular risk predictions are accurate for populations but not directly translatable to individual patients.
- Achieving perfect accuracy in individual risk estimation is challenging, even with novel risk factors.
- Direct measurement of subclinical disease offers greater certainty for personalized patient treatment than risk estimates.
Conclusions:
- A paradigm shift from predicting cardiovascular events to detecting subclinical disease is recommended.
- This shift can enhance personalized decision-making and improve patient outcomes in preventive cardiology.
- Innovative strategies for risk estimation and treatment allocation require further investigation.
Abstract:
The current paradigm of primary prevention in cardiology uses traditional risk factors to estimate future cardiovascular risk. These risk estimates are based on prediction models derived from prospective cohort studies and are incorporated into guideline-based initiation algorithms for commonly used preventive pharmacologic treatments, such as aspirin and statins. However, risk estimates are more accurate for populations of similar patients than they are for any individual patient. It may be hazardous to presume that the point estimate of risk derived from a population model represents the most accurate estimate for a given patient. In this review, we exploit principles derived from physics as a metaphor for the distinction between predictions regarding populations versus patients. We identify the following: (1) predictions of risk are accurate at the level of populations but do not translate directly to patients, (2) perfect accuracy of individual risk estimation is unobtainable even with the addition of multiple novel risk factors, and (3) direct measurement of subclinical disease (screening) affords far greater certainty regarding the personalized treatment of patients, whereas risk estimates often remain uncertain for patients. In conclusion, shifting our focus from prediction of events to detection of disease could improve personalized decision-making and outcomes. We also discuss innovative future strategies for risk estimation and treatment allocation in preventive cardiology.
Related Concept Videos
Types 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,...
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value
Sensitivity is the...
Relative Risk
Hazard Rate
Prediction Intervals
However, the point estimate is most likely not the exact value of the population parameter, but close to it. After calculating point estimates, we construct interval estimates, called confidence intervals or prediction intervals. This prediction interval comprises a range of values unlike the point estimate and is a better predictor of the observed sample value, y.
Regression Toward the Mean
