Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 7, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
Association of Original and Revised Pooled Cohort Equations With Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Mortality
Chuanhao Lu1, Min Li2, Deyu Sun3
1Department of Neurosurgery, Xijing Hospital, The Fourth Military Medical University, China.
Insights
The Revised Pooled Cohort Equations (RPCE) provide better calibration for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) mortality risk prediction than the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), especially in diverse populations. RPCE offers more accurate risk estimates, aiding in tailored prevention strategies.
Area of Science:
- Public Health
- Epidemiology
- Cardiovascular Research
Background:
- Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and cerebrovascular diseases (CeVD) are leading causes of mortality.
- The Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) are widely used for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk prediction but have calibration concerns, especially in diverse populations.
- The Revised Pooled Cohort Equations (RPCE) were developed to improve upon PCE, but their performance for CVD and CeVD mortality is less understood.
Purpose of the Study:
- To comprehensively compare the association of PCE and RPCE with CVD mortality and combined CVD and CeVD mortality.
- To conduct subgroup analyses by race and gender within a US adult population.
- To evaluate the calibration and predictive performance of PCE versus RPCE for vascular mortality.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 16,584 primary prevention participants (aged 40-79) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2018) linked to mortality data.
- Calculation of 10-year ASCVD risk using both PCE and RPCE, with Bland-Altman plots assessing score agreement.
- Cox proportional hazards models evaluated associations of standardized scores with CVD and combined CVD/CeVD mortality, with adjustments and stratification by race and gender.
Main Results:
- Both PCE and RPCE were significantly associated with CVD and combined CVD/CeVD mortality.
- PCE consistently overestimated risk compared to RPCE, with greater discrepancies at higher risk levels.
- RPCE demonstrated improved calibration, particularly in racially diverse populations where PCE overestimation was more pronounced.
Conclusions:
- Both PCE and RPCE are robust prognostic tools for vascular mortality.
- RPCE offers improved calibration and more conservative, yet comparably predictive, risk estimates, especially in diverse populations.
- Selecting risk models tailored to specific populations is crucial for optimizing prevention and avoiding overtreatment.
Background:
Cardiovascular (CVD) and cerebrovascular diseases (CeVD) are leading causes of mortality. The Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) are widely used for ASCVD risk prediction, but face calibration concerns, particularly in diverse populations. The Revised Pooled Cohort Equations (RPCE) were developed to address these limitations. While prior research has evaluated these models for ASCVD, less is known about their performance for CVD and CeVD mortality outcomes.
Objective:
This study aimed to comprehensively compare the association of PCE and RPCE with CVD mortality and combined CVD and CeVD mortality, including subgroup analyses by race and gender, within a nationally representative US adult population.
Methods:
We analyzed 16,584 primary prevention participants (aged 40-79 years) from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2018), linked to National Death Index mortality data. We calculated 10-year ASCVD risk using both PCE and RPCE. Bland-Altman plots assessed score agreement. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association of standardized PCE and RPCE scores with CVD and combined CVD and CeVD mortality, adjusting for confounders and stratifying by race and gender.
Results:
Both PCE and RPCE were significantly associated with CVD mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for PCE: 1.91 [95% CI: 1.82-2.01]; RPCE: 1.65 [95% CI: 1.59-1.72]) and combined CVD and CeVD mortality (adjusted HR for PCE: 1.91 [95% CI: 1.82-2.00]; RPCE: 1.65 [95% CI: 1.60-1.72]). Bland-Altman analyses revealed PCE consistently overestimated risk compared to RPCE, with differences increasing at higher risk levels. RPCE demonstrated improved calibration, especially in racially diverse populations, where PCE overestimation was more pronounced.
Conclusion:
Both PCE and RPCE are robust prognostic tools for vascular mortality. However, RPCE offers improved calibration, particularly in racially diverse populations, by providing more conservative yet comparably predictive risk estimates. These findings highlight the importance of selecting risk models tailored to target populations to optimize prevention and avoid potential overtreatment.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Actuarial Approach
Consider the example of a high-risk surgical procedure with significant early-stage mortality. A two-year clinical study is conducted,...
Drug Dosing in Renal Diseases: Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate Based on Serum Creatinine Concentration
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,...
Blood 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...
Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data
Cardiac Output II: Effect of Stroke Volume on Cardiac Output
Preload
Preload refers to the initial elongation of the cardiac myocytes before contraction and is related to the volume of blood filling the heart at the end of diastole, or end-diastolic volume. The...

