Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 3, 2025

Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
Development and validation of hypertension prediction models: The Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study_Cardiovascular
Hyun Kyung Namgung1,2, Hye Won Woo2,3, Jinho Shin4
1Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Graduate School of Public Health, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.
Insights
The Framingham-based hypertension risk model (F-CAVAS-HTN) showed better internal validation than models with additional factors or from other populations. Further studies are needed to enhance its external validity for hypertension prediction.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology
- Hypertension Risk Prediction Modeling
- Biostatistics and Predictive Analytics
Background:
- Accurate hypertension risk prediction is crucial for cardiovascular disease prevention.
- Existing models like the Framingham risk score require validation and potential refinement in diverse populations.
- The CArdioVascular disease Association Study (CAVAS) provides a unique dataset for developing and validating such models.
Purpose of the Study:
- To develop and internally validate hypertension risk prediction models using CAVAS data.
- To externally validate these models and compare them against established Framingham and population-specific models.
- To assess the predictive performance, calibration, and reclassification accuracy of the developed models.
Main Methods:
- 6,186 participants without hypertension were randomly assigned to derivation (60%) and internal validation (40%) sets.
- Two models were derived: F-CAVAS-HTN (using Framingham factors) and CAVAS-HTN (including additional factors via Weibull regression).
- External validation involved Ansan and Ansung (A&A) participants; internal validation of Framingham (F-HTN) and A&A (A&A-HTN) models used the CAVAS internal set. Performance metrics included C-statistic, Hosmer-Lemeshow tests, and net reclassification.
Main Results:
- All four models demonstrated good discrimination (C-statistic ≥ 0.7).
- F-CAVAS-HTN models exhibited good internal calibration (H-L χ² < 20, P ≥ 0.05).
- CAVAS-HTN, F-HTN, and A&A-HTN models showed poor external calibration (H-L χ² ≥ 20 or P < 0.05).
Conclusions:
- The F-CAVAS-HTN model, derived from Framingham factors within the CAVAS cohort, appears more reliable for internal prediction than models incorporating additional factors or derived from different populations.
- Significant discrepancies in external calibration were observed for CAVAS-HTN, F-HTN, and A&A-HTN models, highlighting the challenges of generalizability.
- While F-CAVAS-HTN shows promise, further research is necessary to improve its external validity for broader hypertension risk prediction.
Abstract:
This study aimed to develop and validate the hypertension risk prediction models of the CArdioVascular disease Association Study (CAVAS). Overall, 6,186 participants without hypertension at baseline were randomly divided into derivation and internal validation sets in a 6:4 ratio. We derived two prediction models: the first used the Framingham hypertension risk prediction factors (F-CAVAS-HTN); the second considered additional risk factors identified using stepwise Weibull regression analysis (CAVAS-HTN). These models were externally evaluated among Ansan and Ansung (A&A) participants, and the external validity of the Framingham and A&A prediction models (F-HTN and A&A-HTN) were assessed using the internal validation set of CAVAS. The discrimination, calibration, and net reclassification were determined. During the 4-year follow-up, 777 new cases of hypertension were diagnosed. All four models showed good discrimination (C-statistic ≥ 0.7). Internal calibrations were good for both the coefficient-based and the risk score-based F-CAVAS-HTN models, respectively (Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square, H-L χ2 < 20, P ≥ 0.05). However, the two CAVAS models (H-L χ2 ≥ 20, P < 0.05, both) as well as the F-HTN and the A&A-HTN prediction models (H-L χ2 = 155.39, P < 0.0001; H-L χ2 = 209.72, P < 0.0001, respectively) were not externally calibrated. The F-CAVAS-HTN may be better than models with additional risk factors or derived for another population in the view of the findings of the internal validation in the present study, although future studies to improve the external validity of the F-CAVAS-HTN are needed.
Related Concept Videos
Hypertension III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Genome-wide Association Studies-GWAS
GWAS does not require the identification of the target gene involved in...
Hypertension and Regulation of Blood Pressure
Hypertension II: Pathophysiology
Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Assessing Blood Pressure
Hypertension I: Introduction

