Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Relative Risk01:12

Relative Risk

128
Relative risk (RR) is a statistical measure commonly used in epidemiology to compare the likelihood of a particular event occurring between two groups. This metric is important for evaluating the relationship between exposure to a specific risk factor and the probability of a particular outcome. It plays a crucial role in medical research, public health studies, and risk assessment. Relative risk quantifies how much more (or less) likely an event is to occur in an exposed group compared to an...
128
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

124
Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
124
Hazard Ratio01:12

Hazard Ratio

99
The hazard ratio (HR) is a widely used measure in clinical trials to compare the risk of events, such as death or disease recurrence, between two groups over time. It reflects the ratio of hazard rates—the instantaneous risk of the event occurring—between a treatment group and a control group. This measure provides valuable insights into the relative effectiveness of a treatment by assessing how the risk of an event differs between the two groups.
For example, in a clinical trial...
99
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis01:23

Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis

33
Mechanistic models are utilized in individual analysis using single-source data, but imperfections arise due to data collection errors, preventing perfect prediction of observed data. The mathematical equation involves known values (Xi), observed concentrations (Ci), measurement errors (εi), model parameters (ϕj), and the related function (ƒi) for i number of values. Different least-squares metrics quantify differences between predicted and observed values. The ordinary least...
33
Kaplan-Meier Approach01:24

Kaplan-Meier Approach

111
The Kaplan-Meier estimator is a non-parametric method used to estimate the survival function from time-to-event data. In medical research, it is frequently employed to measure the proportion of patients surviving for a certain period after treatment. This estimator is fundamental in analyzing time-to-event data, making it indispensable in clinical trials, epidemiological studies, and reliability engineering. By estimating survival probabilities, researchers can evaluate treatment effectiveness,...
111
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Algorithms for Numerical Problem Solving01:29

Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Algorithms for Numerical Problem Solving

45
Mechanistic models play a crucial role in algorithms for numerical problem-solving, particularly in nonlinear mixed effects modeling (NMEM). These models aim to minimize specific objective functions by evaluating various parameter estimates, leading to the development of systematic algorithms. In some cases, linearization techniques approximate the model using linear equations.
In individual population analyses, different algorithms are employed, such as Cauchy's method, which uses a...
45

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The relationship between hypertension and thoracic spine bone mineral density: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).

BMC musculoskeletal disorders·2026
Same author

Reevaluating the Use of Race/Ethnicity in the MESA Risk Score.

Journal of the American Heart Association·2026
Same author

The Effect of Restrictive vs Liberal Blood Transfusion Strategy on Subsequent Myocardial Infarction Type.

JACC. Advances·2026
Same author

Etiological myocardial injury classification versus binary myocardial infarction classification in the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA).

American journal of preventive cardiology·2026
Same author

Blood Levels of Angiotensinogen and Risk of Ischemic Stroke: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.

Journal of the American Heart Association·2026
Same author

Association of Subclinical Cardiac Remodeling With Incident Cancer in the MESA Cohort.

Journal of the American Heart Association·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 14, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.0K

PREVENT Risk Score vs the Pooled Cohort Equations in MESA.

Brittany Saldivar Murphy1, M Sims Hershey2, Shi Huang1

  • 1Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

JACC. Advances
|May 27, 2025
PubMed
Summary

The new PREVENT equations offer more accurate atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk prediction than current guidelines. PREVENT-ASCVD equations show improved performance across diverse populations, aiding better cardiovascular risk assessment.

Keywords:
ASCVDheart failureoutcomesrisk prediction

More Related Videos

Establishing a Competing Risk Regression Nomogram Model for Survival Data
04:57

Establishing a Competing Risk Regression Nomogram Model for Survival Data

Published on: October 23, 2020

10.1K
Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
06:55

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

14.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 14, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.0K
Establishing a Competing Risk Regression Nomogram Model for Survival Data
04:57

Establishing a Competing Risk Regression Nomogram Model for Survival Data

Published on: October 23, 2020

10.1K
Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
06:55

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

14.4K

Area of Science:

  • Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Epidemiology
  • Risk Prediction Modeling

Background:

  • The American Heart Association introduced the PREVENT (Predicting Risk of CVD Events) equations in 2023.
  • These equations aim to estimate the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and heart failure (HF).

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the predictive performance of the PREVENT-ASCVD equations against the current Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE).
  • To evaluate the accuracy of the PREVENT-HF risk algorithm.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) cohort of 6,098 individuals.
  • Calculated baseline PCE and PREVENT-predicted 10-year ASCVD event percentages.
  • Assessed observed event rates, prediction-observation discordance, discrimination (C-index), and calibration (MAE).

Main Results:

  • Observed ASCVD events (6.0%) aligned more closely with PREVENT predictions (5.7%) than PCE (10.8%).
  • PREVENT-ASCVD showed greater accuracy in women, nonsmokers, individuals with CKD stages 3/4, and those with high social deprivation.
  • Forty-two percent of the cohort experienced risk re-classification to a lower category using PREVENT vs. PCE.
  • PREVENT-HF overestimated HF events by 2.1% (62.6% relative risk overestimation).

Conclusions:

  • PREVENT-ASCVD equations provide more accurate ASCVD risk stratification compared to PCE.
  • PREVENT demonstrates superior performance in women, nonsmokers, individuals with renal dysfunction, social deprivation, and Black individuals.
  • PREVENT-HF tends to overestimate the risk of incident heart failure within the MESA cohort.